Excerpt: ...is repeated exposure to toxic chemicals in gasoline and diesel fuel, including Benzene. Defendants other than Chevron are foreign corporations that do not maintain their principal place of business in Alameda County. Defendant Chevron's principal place of business is in Contra Costa County. Plaintiff picked up fuel for delivery at locations in Contra Costa County and San Joaquin County. Plaintiff Donna Danley, the spouse of Plaintiff Bernon Danle...

Excerpt: ...ither his son, Sterling B. Smith II, nor Ms. Jones, are named as plaintiffs in this case. In view of this unambiguous concession, the Court declines to order Plaintiff to redact references to them. Defendant's motion to strike is granted as to Plaintiff's claim for an award of punitive damages. As Defendant is a healthcare provider as defined by MICRA, Plaintiff is required to file a motion for leave to include such a claim in this case. See CCP ...

Excerpt: ... or class claims against Aya Healthcare in this action. Defendant filed its Answer in January 2019. Defendant is a nationwide healthcare staffing company headquartered in San Diego, California. Defendant assigns its Registered Nurses, Licensed Vocational Nurses and Certified Nursing Assistants to facilities on temporary assignments throughout the United States. The case was reassigned to Department 517 on February 20, 2019, after Plaintiff's requ...

Excerpt: .... v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, 588 (claim is co-extensive with claim of simple negligence). The Court agrees with Defendant's contention that Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action, as currently pled, is duplicative of Plaintiff's First Cause of Action. See Rodrigues v. Campbell Industries (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 494, 501 (court may strike duplicative causes of action that add nothing to what is already pled). Pla...

Excerpt: ...provision cited by Plaintiff's attorney prohibits landlords from reporting or threatening to report individuals to immigration authorities. The First Amended Complaint includes no allegations concerning the immigration status of anyone involved in the case. Plaintiff is hereby granted leave to allege a claim for retaliation under a different provision of section 1942.5. 2. Defendants' demurrer to Plaintiff's Tenth Cause of Action for Constructive...

Excerpt: ...eks an order that would result in the transfer of the Berko case to this Court for consolidation (trial only) or, in the alternative, an order requiring the parties in the Berko case move that Court to transfer this case to Contra Costa County for consolidation (trial only). The motion to transfer and consolidate is denied for procedural and substantive reasons. First, Plaintiff failed to file and serve the motion at least 16 court days prior to ...

Excerpt: ... or class claims against Aya Healthcare in this action. Defendant filed its Answer in January 2019. Defendant is a nationwide healthcare staffing company headquartered in San Diego, California. Defendant assigns its Registered Nurses, Licensed Vocational Nurses and Certified Nursing Assistants to facilities on temporary assignments throughout the United States. The case was reassigned to Department 517 on February 20, 2019, after Plaintiff's requ...

Excerpt: ...pointment at Victorian Edge Salon, located at 1814 Third Street. Plaintiff testified that she left the salon through the main entrance and exit on Third Street, and took a right turn on the sidewalk toward N Street and another right turn on Third Street. As the moving party, Defendant is required to present sufficient evidence to show that one or more elements of Plaintiff's Fifth Cause of Action cannot be established. See CCP § 437c(p)(2). Defe...

Excerpt: ...at Defendants Polaris Industries, Inc., Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC and Larson Marine, Inc. are liable because the boat failed to conform to the conditions of the express and implied warranties for the performance of the vessel. Plaintiff alleges generally that the boat failed to perform in the manner that a reasonable consumer would expect it to perform. Plaintiff alleges that he took the boat to Larson Marine, Inc. and the authorized repai...

Excerpt: ...ded Complaint. The Court sustained both earlier filed demurrers with leave to amend. The Court agrees with Defendant's contention that Plaintiff still has not complied with his obligation to plead specific facts supporting each element of the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action. See Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645; and Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157. The Court, however, does not believe th...

Excerpt: ...ublease Agreement, pursuant to CCP § 430.10(e), is OVERRULED. Although the Court generally considers only the facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint, it is permitted to review exhibits attached to the pleading. See Stella v. Asset Mgmt. Consultants, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 181, 193-194; and Moran v. Prime Healthcare Mgmt., Inc. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1131, 1145-1146. The Court has reviewed section 15 of the Sublease Agreement (Exhibit A) a...

Excerpt: ...that Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees was timely filed on April 2, 2021. See Rules of Court 3.1702(b)(1) and 8.104(a)(1)(C). In this case, the Alameda County Superior Court clerk did not serve Plaintiff's attorneys with notice that the Court entered the judgment on October 5, 2020. Attorney Tara Cooper does not appear on the clerk's mailing list. Attorney Eduardo Martorell does appear on the mailing list, but the address used by the clerk w...

Excerpt: ...fs also attached two-hundred-and-ninety-five (295) pages of exhibits, including the lease agreements, to the Complaint. On April 23, 2021, Defendants filed their Verified Answer to the Verified Complaint and the subject Cross- Complaint for Fraud and Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. The claims in the Cross-Complaint are based on the statements made by Cross-Defendants' representatives Rich Robbins and Chris Barlow du...

Excerpt: ...September 25, 2019. See Labor Code § 2699. Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that Defendant engages in the following practices that violate the Labor Code: (1) Defendant fails to authorize and permit its non-exempt security officers to take meal and rest breaks; (2) Defendant fails to pay its non-exempt security officers at a premium rate for working through their meal and rest breaks; (3) Defendant fails to provide its non-exempt security offi...

Excerpt: ...September 25, 2019. See Labor Code § 2699. Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that Defendant engages in the following practices that violate the Labor Code: (1) Defendant fails to authorize and permit its non-exempt security officers to take meal and rest breaks; (2) Defendant fails to pay its non-exempt security officers at a premium rate for working through their meal and rest breaks; (3) Defendant fails to provide its non-exempt security offi...

Excerpt: ...any time prior to trial. See Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1108. Cross-Defendant's motion is not an untimely and defective motion for reconsideration of the Court's ruling of May 27, 2020. The Court specifically granted Cross-Defendant leave to make the request when it denied its earlier motion. Based on its review of the parties' written submissions, the Court declines to grant Cross-Defendant leave to proceed with its second motio...

Excerpt: ...ll documents related to the company's preparation of its proposal to the City for the Residential Recycling ("RR") contract in 2015. The parties advise that the City began the process of soliciting proposals from companies interested in providing recycling and waste collection services in 2012. The objection of CWS that the request is overbroad and seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action is overruled. The infor...

Excerpt: ...aware that the parties are scheduled to participate in a mandatory settlement conference in Department 301 on July 2, 2021. Growers Properties No. 30 had until August 14, 2019 to file the Cross-Complaint as a matter of right. See CCP § 428.50(a) (cross-complaint due at the same time that a party answers the complaint or cross-complaint of a party). The reasons for counsel's decision not to file the Cross-Complaint at that time do not support a f...

Excerpt: ...f it is able to prove that a statute authorizes such an award and that the amount requested is reasonable. See Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 817-818. Moorpark has established its entitlement to make a request for reimbursement of its reasonably incurred attorney's and paralegal's fees and costs in this case. In the declarations of attorney LeRoy and paralegal Lichtenberger dated July 13, 20...

Excerpt: ...torney Yudien did not prepare and submit a declaration that complies with the requirements set forth in Rule of Court 3.1324(b). Mr. Yudien's submission of a redline version of the existing First Amended Complaint and the proposed Second Amended Complaint is not sufficient. Plaintiff's motion is substantively deficient because the proposed additional cause of action and allegations are not necessary. Plaintiff's attorney acknowledges that he does...

Excerpt: ...torney Yudien did not prepare and submit a declaration that complies with the requirements set forth in Rule of Court 3.1324(b). Mr. Yudien's submission of a redline version of the existing First Amended Complaint and the proposed Second Amended Complaint is not sufficient. Plaintiff's motion is substantively deficient because the proposed additional cause of action and allegations are not necessary. Plaintiff's attorney acknowledges that he does...

Excerpt: ...ailer worker employed by Defendant from 2016 until 2020. Plaintiff alleges in paragraph 1 of the Complaint that he is representing the State of California and "other current and former employees at a retail store location" who were employed from April 24, 2019 until the date when judgment is entered. Plaintiff initially requested that the case be deemed complex and assigned to Department 23. On October 6, 2020, Plaintiff's request that the Court ...

Excerpt: ...21, and by Defendant in support of its reply to Plaintiff's opposition on April 16, 2021. The Court may grant Defendant's motion to seal if it expressly finds that facts exist that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is no...

Excerpt: ...at Homesite Services, Inc. owed Cross-Complainants a duty to defend and indemnify them in this personal injury action arising out of an accident occurring on a construction site. The Court ordered counsel for Cross-Complainant to submit a revised proposed order for its consideration. Cross-Complainant did submit a proposed order, but counsel apparently did not give opposing counsel an opportunity to approve it as to form as required by Rule of Co...

Excerpt: ...emurrer to the First Cause of Action for Promissory Fraud and Second Cause of Action for Cancellation of Written Instrument with leave to amend. The Court overruled Defendants' demurrer to the Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action. Plaintiff did not file the First Amended Complaint until March 17, 2021. Plaintiff and Defendants submitted two stipulations seeking additional time for Plaintiff to comply with the Court's order of January 12, 2021...