Excerpt: ...nded complaint at this time. Defendant, to the extent it has not already answered, is ORDERED to answer the remaining causes of action in the FAC no later than 20 days after the Court begins accepting filings of like documents via fax filing or other method. At the time of this writing the Court, generally speaking, is not accepting all standard civil filings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant provide written notic...

Excerpt: ...aintiff's Complaint, filed on February 5, 2020, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain, including for the following reasons: The Complaint fails to identify a statutory basis for Defendant's alleged liability and facts essential to the existence of such statutory liability. (See, e.g., Eastburn v. Regional Fir Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1175, 1179-1180; Lopez v. So. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (...

Excerpt: ...COVID-19 pandemic. The parties are to consult the Emergency Local Rules. After service of a further amended complaint, Defendant will have 15 days after service to respond to the amended pleading by a method permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant's time to respond shall be modified pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, based on the method of service of the further amended complaint. DISCUSSION Before filing a complaint un...

Excerpt: ...or battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"), fraudulent concealment, private nuisance, and public nuisance. Plaintiffs' Complaint also requests attorney fees and punitive damages. Defendants now move to strike the Complaint's requests for attorney fees and punitive damages. "The court may, upon a motion . . . or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: . . . [s]trike out any irrelevant, fals...

Excerpt: ...s likewise DENIED. DEMURRER On December 5, 2019, this Court sustained with leave to amend Defendant Ukoha- Ajike's demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint. The Court's Order pointed out certain errors in the Complaint's allegations of duty made against Defendant Ukoha-Ajike. As stated in the Order, "the Complaint does not clearly allege any breach by Defendant Ukoha-Ajike in regards to his representation of the predecessor Administrator of the Estate, ...

Excerpt: ... she is a necessary or proper party to this action subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. (See CCP § 415.50(a).) Further, the Court finds that Sadovsky's current motion does not suffer from the defects that were present in his prior attempt to receive an order authorizing service by publication. (See Order of 11/21/2019.) The Court further notes that, in regards to his Cross-Complaint against her, Sadovsky has made several additional attempt...

Excerpt: ...r amended complaint at this time. Any Defendant who has already answered is not required to file an amended answer in response to this Order. AC Transit, to the extent it has not already answered, is ORDERED to answer the remaining allegations of the TAC no later than 20 days from the date of service of notice of entry of this Order, as modified for method of service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. A government entity is not liable fo...

Excerpt: ... of action brought against Permobil, in Plaintiff's words, "[c]laims for consumer fraud because Permobil falsely represented to [Plaintiff] that its wheelchair 'was safe and effective,' and because Permobil's misrepresentation was a 'substantial factor' that caused harm to [Plaintiff]." (Pltf.'s Opp., p. 2:25-27.) DEMURRER "A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint." (Redfearn v. Trader Joe's Co. (2018) 20 C...

Excerpt: ... but no later than May 15, 2020. When a motion to compel discovery is granted, a court shall order the party to whom discovery was directed to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, of the party propounding the discovery. (See, e.g., CCP §§ 2023.030(a), 2030.290 et. seq., 2031.300 et. seq.) A court, however, is limited to awarding only reasonable expenses. (See Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los Angeles (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 2...

Excerpt: ..."LWDA") is not present at the negotiating table, the Court's review of a PAGA settlement must make sure that the interests of the LWDA in civil enforcement are defended and that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable under all the circumstances. (See O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2016) 201 F.Supp.3d 1110, 1133; see also Gov't Code § 12652(e)(2)(B) [requiring False Claims Act qui tam settlements be "fair, adequate, and ...

Excerpt: ... thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) the right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement." (CCP § 1281.2; see also CCP § 1281.7; cf. 9 USC §§ 1 et. seq.) Here, Plaintiffs file...

Excerpt: ...pressed concern that Plaintiff will appear at her deposition without producing documents. (See, Def.'s Reply, p. 6.) However, Plaintiff herself appears to indicate otherwise, as in her written opposition she states she will "appear for her deposition on March 17, 2020 with documents." (See Pltf.'s Opp., p. 1:21-22; see also Dec. D. Feder, ¶ 13 [stating same].) In any case, the Court does not rule on this issue at this time, because the Court vie...

Excerpt: ...rder. Permobil, to the extent it has not already answered, is ORDERED to answer the remaining allegations of the TAC no later than 20 days from the date of service of notice of entry of this Order, as modified for method of service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. The TAC's Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Causes of Action involve allegations of fraud directed at Permobil. Permobil does not demur to the other causes of action brought again...

Excerpt: ...ts of a fraud cause of action. A cause of action for fraud must be alleged with particularity. Simply using a Judicial Council form does not make a cause of action demurrer-proof. Here, Plaintiff alleges a "written contract," payment by Plaintiff to Defendants, and that Defendants "did nothing to help Plaintiff reduce her tax liability." (FAC, p. 5.) These allegations may be sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of contract, but t...

Excerpt: ...y Area Rapid Transit District ("BART") from (1) prohibiting Petitioner from returning to her workplace at eBART in Antioch, California; (2) materially altering Petitioner's work assignments or reporting structure as they existed on October 20, 2019; or (3) taking disciplinary action against Petitioner for returning to work at eBART in Antioch and performing the work assignments and reporting structure as they existed on October 20, 2019. In decid...

Excerpt: ...the Cross-Complaint) only, the cause of action is no longer operative within the Cross-Complaint as to Plaintiffs. Defendants need not file an amended cross- complaint at this time. Any Cross-Defendants who have already answered the Cross-Complaint are not required to file an amended answer to the Cross-Complaint at this time. To the extent they have not already done so, Plaintiffs shall answer the remaining allegations brought against them in th...

Excerpt: ...2020. Unless the parties have or do agree to a stipulation regarding confidentiality, as suggested by Intervenor, sensitive information should be redacted and a redaction log provided by Intervenor to Defendant. B. IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESSES (FORM INTERROGATORY 12.1) To the extent it has not already done so, Intervenor is ORDERED to supplement its response as stated in the parties' Joint Status Report filed on February 6, 2020. C. INCIDENT REPOR...

Excerpt: ...r amended complaint at this time. Any Defendant who has already answered is not required to file an amended answer in response to this Order. AC Transit, to the extent it has not already answered, is ORDERED to answer the remaining allegations of the TAC no later than 20 days from the date of service of notice of entry of this Order, as modified for method of service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. A government entity is not liable fo...

Excerpt: ...di's right to arbitrate, but is affirmatively seeking its own relief in obtaining an order compelling arbitration of its claims. One party may join another party's motion when the joining party seeks the same relief and has no independent burden in regards to providing support for the motion. (See Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 654, 660- 662.) Here, however, Teamsoft and Nakidi's factual relationship to the arbitration a...

Excerpt: ...er, Defendant has now provided the subject discovery responses and paid the subject monetary sanctions. (See Def.'s Opp., pp. 3:15-4:1 [citing to evidence].) Thus, the underlying basis for this motion is moot. Second, Plaintiff filed this motion during a period of time where Defendant was switching representation, something Plaintiff was aware of. (See Dec. B. Tengberg, ¶ 12.) Once the transition was completed, by all accounts, Defendant's new c...

Excerpt: ...ime. Any Defendant who has already answered is not required to file an amended answer in response to this Order. Oakland, to the extent it has not already answered, is ORDERED to answer the remaining allegations of the SAC no later than 20 days from the date of service of notice of entry of this Order, as modified for method of service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. A government entity is not liable for punitive damages. (See Gov't C...

Excerpt: ...aintiff are parties to a written agreement requiring arbitration of the claims asserted against Nakidi in this lawsuit and that Plaintiffhas not made a sufficient showing that Nakidi waived the right to arbitrate the agreement or that "there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact" if the Court orders arbitration of the claims against Nakidi, but not the claimsagainst Defendant Teamsoft Technologies, LLC ("Teamsof...

Excerpt: ...After filing his Complaint, Plaintiff Satya Velu applied for a temporary restraining order against Defendant. A temporary restraining order was issued on January 28, 2020 and this motion was also ordered. Defendant has not timely opposed the motion in writing. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the Court weighs two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on ...

Excerpt: ...try of this Order, as modified for method of service by Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. This action involves, in Plaintiff's words, "a serious trip-and-fall injury caused by an unmarked 3 inch high protruding section of sidewalk at the intersection of 12th and Jackson Streets immediately adjacent to a large 5 story structure in . . . [downtown] Oakland. . . . caused by invasive roots from an adjacent tree." (Pltf.'s Opp., p. 4.) Plaintiff a...

Excerpt: ...ement. Plaintiff eventually vacated the property and now allege in their Complaint that Defendants wrongfully refuse to return Plaintiff's security deposit. Plaintiff now seeks prejudgment attachment of "[a]ny property of [Defendant Vima Harrison 1, LLC]." (See Ntc. of App. filed 1/16/2020, p. 2, item 9(a).) Initially, Plaintiffs' Application is defective. Plaintiffs are corporate plaintiffs; however, the Application is signed by Plaintiffs' liti...