Excerpt: ...ss representatives, a net PAGA payment of $2,250, and settlement administration costs of up to $5,000. After these expenses, the class would get $87,250. The average payout per class members would be $883. The proposed class notice form and procedure are adequate. The proposed class is appropriate for class certification. The motion makes an adequate analysis as required by Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116. A very imp...

Excerpt: ...ng and recording of a lis pendens is protected activity under C.C.P. § 425.16(e)(2). This issue was extensively analyzed by in Park 100 Investment Group II, LLC v. Ryan (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 795. To show a probability of prevailing for purposes of section 425.16, a plaintiff must "make a prima facie showing of facts which would, if proved at trial, support a judgment in plaintiffs favor. [citation.]" (ComputerXpress. Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 C...

Excerpt: ..., sold and/or distributed 12 types of nutritional supplement products (the "Supplements"), which Plaintiff alleges contain lead, a known cancer‐causing substance. Plaintiff's supplemental evidence identifies the levels of lead discovered by the testing of said Supplements and what amounts of lead consumers would be consuming based on typical daily serving sizes. (See Records Filed under Seal, pages immediately following Hajdu Sales Dec..) The p...

Excerpt: ...which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings: (1) [t]he party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole[;] [and] (2) [t]he health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation." (CCP § 36(a).) "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may in its discretion grant a motion for preference that is supported by a showing that sa...

Excerpt: ...nspiracy allegations to evade their obligation to plead fraud‐based causes of action with particularity. Further, the Court does not understand how TILA or Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. § 1026.1 et seq.) can possibly apply to the at‐issue loans as alleged in the SAC's Sixth Cause of Action, where the loans were extended to a limited liability company, rather than to a "consumer" as defined at 12 C.F.R. § 1026.2(a)(8) and (11) (i.e., a "natural pe...

Excerpt: ... slander of title to two properties in Pleasanton, CA; (4) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (re: the four Pleasanton properties); (5) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (the Fremont properties); (6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (the two Pleasanton properties referenced in the third cause of action); (7) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage ...

Excerpt: ...October 25, 2021, consistent with this Order. An initial hearing was conducted on 9/9/2021. Following that hearing, the Court issued an Order advising that RFPDs Nos. 7 and 16 were overbroad as drafted and advising the parties to meet and confer further regarding attempts to appropriately narrow the RFPD. The Court set a second hearing for the Motion to Compel and Ordered the parties to submit a joint statement regarding any agreements reached in...

Excerpt: ...-month-long Covid-19 emergency, the running of the five-year statute has been and will continue to be tolled due to impossibility and/or impracticability arising out of the Covid emergency until this Court is able to conduct jury trials in non-preferentially set cases. An argument can be made that Plaintiff has at times been dilatory in this now six- year long litigation. However, the Alameda Superior Court, since the Covid emergency was declared...

Excerpt: ...trial court by focusing it on the facts essential to the resolution of the motion. It is not the presentation of all facts in a two column format. The court has considered all the evidence submitted. All objections to evidence are OVERRULED. Plaintiff made targeted objections. Defendants made objections to categories of evidence. The Court refers counsel to Demps v. San Francisco Housing Authority (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 564, 578 fn 6, regarding t...

Excerpt: ...o the PAGA claims and settlement, as described below. The parties may file a revised Settlement Agreement addressing the Court's concerns no later than Monday, October 18, 2021. Note that Case No. RG 20-081357 and Case No. RG 20-082062 have been deemed related.) IF ANY PARTY WISHES TO CONTEST THIS TENTATIVE RULING, NO LATER than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, October 1, 2021 contesting party must email [email protected] and provide notice to al...

Excerpt: ...ion to Dismiss the Cross-Complaint of defendant and cross-complainant Dellesia Onifade ("Onifade") for Delay in Prosecution is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below. The Court declines to rule on Fonteno's Motion for Writ of Execution and Abstract of Judgment. Fonteno has remedies to enforce a prior monetary sanctions award that do not require a further Order of Court. (See Newland v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.) Kennedy's Motion f...

Excerpt: ...2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 989, 996.) The Court must determine "whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense." (Id.) The court assumes "the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of which judicial notice has been taken." (Id.) "As a general rule in testing a pleading against a demurrer the facts alleg...

Excerpt: ...uct; and (3) if the contract was written, attach the contract as an exhibit to the First Amended Cross-Complaint or allege, verbatim, the term(s) of the contract that BWR breached. Although paragraph 6 of the Cross-Complaint refers to a "lease", it does not appear that Kapila is alleging that BWR actually leased the subject property from Kapila. In addition, Kapila fails to expressly allege that they entered a contract with BWR requiring that any...

Excerpt: ...n to the motion. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION In reviewing the First Amended Complaint, the court agrees that Plaintiff has not adequately alleged sufficient facts in support of its cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional distress, which requires showing "(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's sufferi...

Excerpt: ... from default [citations].' " (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980, quoting Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233). If a defendant promptly seeks relief and there is no showing of prejudice to the plaintiff " 'very slight evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside the default.' " (Elston, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 233.) Further, although there is no legal obligation to warn an opposing party before applyi...

Excerpt: ...ion to Dismiss the Cross-Complaint of defendant and cross-complainant Dellesia Onifade ("Onifade") for Delay in Prosecution is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below. The Court declines to rule on Fonteno's Motion for Writ of Execution and Abstract of Judgment. Fonteno has remedies to enforce a prior monetary sanctions award that do not require a further Order of Court. (See Newland v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.) Kennedy's Motion f...

Excerpt: ... no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, August 9, 2021, a party to the action notifies both (1) the Court by emailing [email protected], and (2) all opposing counsel or self-represented parties, that the party is contesting this tentative ruling. The clerk shall provide the hearing date and time, and call information. If a hearing is requested, the hearing will be conducted on Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. or at a subsequent da...

Excerpt: ... from default [citations].' " (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980, quoting Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233). If a defendant promptly seeks relief and there is no showing of prejudice to the plaintiff " 'very slight evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside the default.' " (Elston, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 233.) Further, although there is no legal obligation to warn an opposing party before applyi...

Excerpt: ...hall have as costs of suit against Defendant the total amount of $3,613.25. STANDARD OF LAW A prevailing party may recover costs under California law. (See CCP § 1032(a)(4).) "Prevailing party" includes "a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant." (Id.) "Except as otherwis...

Excerpt: ...'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to SROG Nos. 18-21 and 66 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Further Responses to RFA Nos. 9-10 and FROG No. 17.1 with respect to RFA Nos. 9-10 are GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPD Nos. 30, 32 and 47 is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve verified further responses to Plaintiff's at-issue written discovery requests as Ordered herein no later than Fri...

Excerpt: ...T as to Items Nos. 2, 7-8, 11-14, and 18-22, in light of the Court's ruling on Defendant's demurrer, also heard this date. The Motion is GRANTED as to Items Nos. 3 and 9 in the Notice of Motion, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to allege facts (as opposed to conclusory allegations) demonstrating that Defendant acted with malice, fraud, or oppression. The Motion is GRANTED as to Items Nos. 4-6 in the Notice of Motion. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligent...

Excerpt: ... B. Mitchell oppose the motion. In their reply brief, however, Plaintiffs concede that Questions 3, 4, 15, 17, 18, 19, 31, and 32 were satisfactorily answered during the deposition notwithstanding counsel's instruction not to answer. The Court accordingly considers the motion withdrawn as to those questions. Plaintiffs point to several questions to which the witnesses were instructed not to provide an answer on the grounds of irrelevance, specula...

Excerpt: ... Conversion of Corporation Property; (3) Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.); (4) Forcible Detainer; (5) Ejectment; (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (7) Negligence as Managing Member of Limited Liability Company. On December 9, 2020, the Court granted Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings in part and dismissed the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action. The case is currently set for a jury trial starting on Novem...

Excerpt: ... and engaged in a good faith interactive process to do so. (See Defendants' Separate Statement Facts ("SSF") Nos. 25-28, 31, 34, 36-37, 39, and 41-42; Plaintiff's response; Plaintiff's Additional Facts ("AF") Nos. 31-33, 39-43, 47, 50, and 57-59; and the evidence cited in support.) A to Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination, the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff's evidence creates a triable issue of material fact as to whether...

Excerpt: ...tion. Defendants argue that inquiries into a treating physician's thoughts and opinions that were formed outside of Plaintiff's actual treatment are irrelevant as a matter of law when the treating physician has not been designated as an expert witness. (See County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1446, 1455-1456 [vacating order compelling treating physicians must testify at deposition as to their present opinions of the medi...