Excerpt: ...stee declined to execute the verifications for the defunct corporations. Counsel also advises that he recently executed the verifications himself and delivered them to Plaintiff's attorneys. See Melendrez v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1354. Plaintiff correctly points out that the Court is required to award reasonable attorney's fees as a discovery sanction even if the opposing party complies with its obligation late. See CCP § 2...

Excerpt: ...o office. Defendant was required by the Judgment to deliver letters to all of his "clients" by certified mail to inform them that they could request a refund of the fees they paid him. Defendant was required to make restitution within 90 days of receiving a request for a refund. The Court declines to grant the People's motion because the Judgment itself requires Defendant to comply. Defendant has elected not to comply. The Court concludes that it...

Excerpt: ... discretion when ruling on requests for a preliminary injunction. See King v. Meese (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1217, 1226-1228; and Smith v. Adventist Health System/West (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 729, 749. The Court should consider the evidence presented by plaintiff in support of his claim that he will likely prevail on the merits and balance the likely harm that the plaintiff will sustain if the injunction does not issue against the likely harm that the def...

Excerpt: ... is a quasi-contract claim entitled, "Goods and Services Rendered." Plaintiff Landman, doing business as The Intergan Technology Group, makes clear that his claims in the 2017 Complaint are based on essentially the same facts alleged in his earlier lawsuit against AkkuSer Oy and Jarmo Pudas (Case No. RG12645044). Plaintiff alleges that AkkuSer Oy received substantial financial benefit from work that he performed on its behalf from December 2008 t...

Excerpt: ...st Defendant for Intentional Misrepresentation is based on her claim that the premises were not fit for human occupancy. The Court advised Plaintiff in its order of May 14, 2019 that the Eighth Cause of Action was not sufficiency pled because she did not identify any statements uttered by Defendant Ratti at any time. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to supplement her allegations. The Court agrees with Defendant's contention that Plaintiff faile...