Excerpt: ...cted to drop the fraud cause of action in his First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint includes two causes of action: (1) conversion; and (2) violation of Penal Code § 496 (receiving or buying stolen property). Defendants have filed a demurrer to the First Amended Complaint and urged the Court to deny Plaintiff leave to amend. Based on its review of the First Amended Complaint and the parties' written submissions, the Court sustains ...

Excerpt: ...erve his Memorandum of Costs seeking reimbursement of $58,964.95. Defendant filed her Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs on July 16, 2020. Defendant's motion is granted because the Court does not agree with Plaintiff's contention that he is the "prevailing party." See CCP § 1032(a)(4). The Court is quite familiar with the facts and the procedural history of this case originally filed on March 11, 2015. This is a case where the Court does not simp...

Excerpt: ... Judgment of Global Medical Response, Inc. is premature because the company has never made an appearance in this case despite being served with the summons in November 2018. Plaintiffs, however, have never sought to take the default of Global Medical Response, Inc. Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants were advised of the failure of Global Medical Response, Inc. to make an appearance in its order of January 9, 2020. The Motion for Summary Judgmen...

Excerpt: ... Cross-Defendant allegedly performed all or nearly all of the work before Cross-Complainants terminated him in December 2017 for failure to comply with the terms of the contract. Cross-Defendant submitted invoices to Cross-Complainants that total $276,808.87. Cross-Complainants paid Plaintiff $173,355.75. Plaintiff Meurer filed his Complaint on May 10, 2018. Defendants filed their Cross-Complaint against Meurer on July 27, 2018. The Court set the...

Excerpt: ...aintiff to file a Third Amended Complaint. The request was granted. The trial date at the time was October 7, 2019. In August 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Continue Trial. The motion was based on Defendants' intent to file a Motion for Summary Judgment prior to trial. The motion was granted, and the trial date was continued to October 26, 2020. Plaintiff then filed his Fourth Amended Complaint on November 4, 2019, after the Court granted Def...

Excerpt: ...ction with prior discovery motions on six occasions. Defendants have advised the Court that Plaintiff has not yet paid any portion of the $6,190.00 that she has been ordered to pay. The Court notes that counsel for Plaintiff attached a personal check in the sum of $5,200.00 made payable to Gordon Rees, et al. with the courtesy copy of her opposition to the motion. The Court does not understand why Ms. Parker did not transmit the check to Defendan...

Excerpt: ...ant. The Court merely notes in the text of this ruling that Martensen owns property adjacent to property owned by Cross- Complainant Yu in the Oakland hills. Cross-Complainant Singh is Yu's business partner and the construction project manager at 80 Roble Road. The Yu property is located downhill from the Martensen property. Martensen commenced his action on December 3, 2019 to indicate his rights under a view easement granted by the former owner...

Excerpt: ...ons under numerous Labor Code provisions in its relationship with non-exempt employees. Plaintiff defines the term "aggrieved employees" as current or former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Mattson during the period from November 12, 2018 to February 3, 2020. Plaintiff attached a copy of her November 12, 2019 notice of intent to file PAGA claim delivered to the Labor & Workplace Development Agency ("LWDA") to the Complaint. Def...

Excerpt: ...ction with prior discovery motions on six occasions. Defendants have advised the Court that Plaintiff has not yet paid any portion of the $6,190.00 that she has been ordered to pay. The Court notes that counsel for Plaintiff attached a personal check in the sum of $5,200.00 made payable to Gordon Rees, et al. with the courtesy copy of her opposition to the motion. The Court does not understand why Ms. Parker did not transmit the check to Defendan...

Excerpt: ...h its obligations under numerous Labor Code provisions in its relationship with non-exempt employees. Plaintiff defines the term "aggrieved employees" as current or former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Mattson during the period from November 12, 2018 to February 3, 2020. Plaintiff attached a copy of her November 12, 2019 notice of intent to file PAGA claim delivered to the Labor & Workplace Development Agency ("LWDA") to the ...

Excerpt: ... December 2014. Plaintiffs allege that neither NNA nor its agents at the dealership disclosed to them that the Continuous Variable Transmission ("CVT") in the vehicle had substantial defects known only to NNA and the dealers. Plaintiffs contend that they would have found such information to be material. They most likely would not have purchased the vehicle if the required disclosure had been made at the time of purchase. Defendant challenges only...

Excerpt: ...S provided medical care to Patient, that AHS billed BCBS for the medical services, and that BCBS has failed to pay for the services. (Cpt para 7-12.) The Complaint alleges that the reasonable value of the medically necessary services, including emergency services, totaled at least $75,312.74, which reflects the usual and customary full bill charges. (Cpt 13.) The Complaint alleges that BCBS paid a portion of the bill but refused to pay $69,425.53...

Excerpt: ...th the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court." (CCP § 436.) An "irrelevant matter," or "immaterial allegation," means: (1) an allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; (2) an allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or (3) a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint. (CCP �...

Excerpt: ...d that Williams could recover costs of suit. On 2/24/20, Williams filed a memo of costs. LEGAL STANDARD The Court's first determination is that of entitlement - whether to allow the cost. That is a question of law if a cost is expressly allowed or prohibited. (CCP 1033.5(a) and (b).) Awarding a cost is otherwise a matter of discretion. (CCP 1033.5)( c)(4).) "An item not specifically allowable ... nor prohibited ... may nevertheless be recoverable...

Excerpt: ...ttlement fund or approx. $29,375. Employees 25% of net settlement fund or approx. $9792. LAW ON PAGA SETTLEMENTS Plaintiff asserts the PAGA claim on behalf of the State of California's Labor Workforce Development Agency. "An employee plaintiff suing ... under the [PAGA] does so as the proxy or agent of the state's labor law enforcement agencies." (Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 381.) (See also ZB, N.A. v. Superior...

Excerpt: ... a Second Amended Complaint to address the deficiencies. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on September 23, 2019. The Second Amended Complaint includes a single cause of action for general negligence. Plaintiff alleges that he is quadriplegic. On March 10, 2018, while receiving treatment at Olive View - UCLA Medical Center, Registered Nurse Aneesh and Nursing Assistant Rennadele alleged caused Plaintiff injury and pain when they were reposit...

Excerpt: ...oss-Defendant breached two separate oral agreements. The First Cause of Action is based on Cross-Defendant's alleged breach of the 2017 agreement described as the "Purchase Agreement" in the Third Amended Cross-Complaint. The terms of the Purchase Agreement are set forth in paragraph 9 of the Third Amended Cross-Complaint. In paragraph 10, Cross- Complainant alleges that he incurred certain material expenses through the removal of tenants and the...

Excerpt: ...Defendant received a total of $11,961.00 that she was not entitled to have. The Court is authorized to enter summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff if it determines that no triable issues of material fact exist and that a reasonable jury would be required to find in its favor based on the factual record. See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-851. Plaintiff's motion is denied because it has not met its burden of producti...

Excerpt: ...oss-Defendant breached two separate oral agreements. The First Cause of Action is based on Cross-Defendant's alleged breach of the 2017 agreement described as the "Purchase Agreement" in the Third Amended Cross-Complaint. The terms of the Purchase Agreement are set forth in paragraph 9 of the Third Amended Cross-Complaint. In paragraph 10, Cross- Complainant alleges that he incurred certain material expenses through the removal of tenants and the...

Excerpt: ... works in San Diego County, she decided to file her PAGA action in Alameda County. Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that Defendants have violated various Labor Code provisions because they have erroneously designated Plaintiff and other underwriters in California as exempt and not hourly employees. Defendants' motion to stay was originally noticed for hearing in Department 21, but it was reset in Department 517 when Judge Winifred Y. Smith deni...

Excerpt: ...1 seeks documents related to Wings of Eagle Fund I, LLC. Defendant's unverified supplemental response does not comply with the clear requirements set forth in CCP § 2031.210 et seq. Defendant must serve a further supplemental response no later than June 19, 2020. Plaintiff's contention that Defendant waived his right to assert all objections to this request is not accepted. Defendant timely asserted an objection in his original response served i...

Excerpt: ...lied. Defendants' motion is denied because it is moot. The Court has determined that Plaintiffs' second Motion for Summary Adjudication was improperly filed without prior court approval. See CCP § 437c(f)(2) (party may not file a second motion for summary adjudication based on the same issues presented in a prior motion without court approval); and Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1108. Plaintiffs did not attempt to make a showing tha...

Excerpt: ...of transfer was April 12, 2019. The Court has not yet set a trial date. The next Case Management Conference is on July 20, 2020. Cross-Defendant asserts in the Demurrer that the First Amended Cross-Complaint is barred as to him by the statute of limitations. Cross-Defendant contends that the First Cause of Action for Defamation is subject to a one-year statute of limitations pursuant to CCP § 340(c). Cross-Defendant contends that the Second Caus...

Excerpt: ...lied. Defendants' motion is denied because it is moot. The Court has determined that Plaintiffs' second Motion for Summary Adjudication was improperly filed without prior court approval. See CCP § 437c(f)(2) (party may not file a second motion for summary adjudication based on the same issues presented in a prior motion without court approval); and Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1108. Plaintiffs did not attempt to make a showing tha...

Excerpt: ...of transfer was April 12, 2019. The Court has not yet set a trial date. The next Case Management Conference is on July 20, 2020. Cross-Defendant asserts in the Demurrer that the First Amended Cross-Complaint is barred as to him by the statute of limitations. Cross-Defendant contends that the First Cause of Action for Defamation is subject to a one-year statute of limitations pursuant to CCP § 340(c). Cross-Defendant contends that the Second Caus...