Excerpt: ... partnership, Clovis Body & Paint, owned by Plaintiff Lim and her son. There was a fire on May 11, 2016. Defendant is the property insurer. Defendant agreed to cover most of the loss and paid Plaintiff and the other owners the sum of $450,641.00. Defendant, however, declined to pay for damage to an industrial paint spray booth. Defendant contends that the industrial spray booth was owned by the tenant and was therefore not part of the insured pre...

Excerpt: ...essive speed given the conditions. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant admitted that he was inattentive and that he could not explain why he failed to stop his vehicle. The Court does not agree with Defendant's assertion that Plaintiff is required to meet a heightened pleading standard when seeking punitive damages. There simply is no clear authority for this common assertion made by defense counsel. In Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App...

Excerpt: ...Plaintiff filed notice substituting Kaiser Foundation Hospitals in the place of DOE 1. Plaintiff's Complaint, which includes ten (10) separate causes of action, clearly violates the requirement that that counsel set forth ultimate facts supporting the ten (10) claims in ordinary and concise language. See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550-552 (plaintiff should plead ultimate facts and not evidentiary facts); and C.A. v. William...

Excerpt: ...ed and managed by Defendant Best Bay Apartments, Inc. is located at 2701 65th Avenue, in Oakland. Plaintiff Taylor testified that her unit, Unit #102, is on the first level above the parking garage. The Court appreciates that counsel for Defendant attached a copy of the Complaint to the courtesy copy of its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's First Cause of Action is for Premises Liability. Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action is for General N...

Excerpt: ...making an appearance. On January 16, 2019, Defendant filed its first Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint included a single Cause of Action for Negligence. On April 5, 2019, the Court granted in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues. In the order, the Court ruled that Defendant did not "make a prima faci...

Excerpt: ...bmit declarations sufficient to show that she made a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve each issue raised in her motions. See CCP §§ 2016.040, 2030.300(b)(1) and 2031.310(b)(2). Plaintiff may not simply state that she sent a letter to defense counsel and then had a telephone conference. Plaintiff must provide facts in her declaration sufficient to show that she made an attempt to resolve each disputed issue informally. The declaration...

Excerpt: ...laint against Plaintiff. The parties stipulated to the filing of a First Amended Cross- Complaint in July 2020, and the Court thereafter granted Defendant leave to file the First Amended Cross-Complaint. In November 2019, the Court set the matter for trial on June 21, 2021. On May 13, 2021, the Court vacated the trial date. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied because it has not met its burden of producing sufficient admissible evide...

Excerpt: ... Renovation Realty Northern California, substantially complied with its licensing requirements. See Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031(e). Subparagraph (e) sets forth the three exclusive factors bearing upon the substantial compliance analysis. See Pacific Caisson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernard Bros. Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 681, 694 (party claiming substantial compliance must show that he or she has satisfied all three factors); and Pacific Caisson & Shor...

Excerpt: ...e permitted to amend their pleadings prior to trial in order to avoid the forfeiture of claims or defenses. See Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428. The Court is generally not permitted to consider whether the proposed amendment is legally sufficient when deciding whether to permit amendment. See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048. In this case, the Court would have been inclined to...

Excerpt: ...list the property and to handle the negotiations with prospective purchasers and their agents. Plaintiffs were represented in this case by Wendy Neft-Sanda and Kane and Associates, Inc. The evidentiary record before the Court is relatively clear and straightforward for this type of case. The parties do not dispute Plaintiffs' contention that the seller, William Thomas Meyers, was aware at all times that a third bedroom had been constructed withou...

Excerpt: ...ice to the opposing party is shown. See Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428; and Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488. Defendant has not demonstrated that it is likely to sustain any undue prejudice if the proposed Second Amended Complaint is allowed. Defendant instead attempted to argue that Plaintiff's claims are not supported by evidence disclosed in discovery that it provided Plaintiff'...

Excerpt: ...laintiff's argument that the response served by Defendant on November 24, 2020 does not comply with the requirements set forth in CCP § 2030.220(a). Although not completely deficient, the Court agrees that Defendant should have provided more facts than the few given in its response. However, the Court does not grant the motion as to interrogatory no. 10 in full because the use of the term "RELATED TO YOUR contention" is vague, ambiguous and inde...

Excerpt: ... Defendant's business originates from individuals and businesses in Louisiana, customers throughout the United States can make orders on the company's website and have the orders shipped to them. Defendant has made sales to customers in California over the years. Approximately six percent (6%) of Defendant's nationwide Internet sales are made to California customers. In 2017, Defendant made $174.00 in sales through its Internet website. In 2018, ...

Excerpt: ...e Court concludes that there are sufficient grounds to support Plaintiff's request for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, but it will not approve the filing of the Second Amended Complaint attached to the motion because it is far too lengthy. The operative First Amended Complaint is itself too lengthy at 31 pages. The proposed Second Amended Complaint is at least 46 pages long. Counsel shall allege only ultimate facts and not evidentiary f...

Excerpt: ...n to enforce settlement agreement filed by Civic Justice, LLC and DeNova Homes, Inc. The Court has reviewed its earlier order dated June 26, 2020. The Court notes that it determined that the May 23, 2019 agreement is valid and enforceable. Despite this determination, Defendant and Cross- Complainant Hardwick persists in his argument that the agreement was illusory or procured by misrepresentations made by the opposing parties and/or their attorne...

Excerpt: ..."at fault" for the accident on December 26, 2019. The Court finds that Defendant's second further response to request no. 4 is sufficient. The request is inherently ambiguous and indefinite in that it does not ask Defendant whether she contends that she was solely at fault or shares some comparative fault. When considering the purpose of requests for admission to put certain matters to rest prior to trial, the Court cannot imagine how the decisio...

Excerpt: ...s GRANTED. Counsel should not have instructed his client not to answer the questions posed by Plaintiffs' counsel. Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1259, does not preclude Plaintiffs' attorney from asking the questions. However, the Court notes that it is not a common tactic to question a party repeatedly about her ability to tell the truth during a deposition. There are appropriate sanctions for failing to give truthful depo...

Excerpt: ...), is DENIED. The issues raised by Defendant's motions are moot. Plaintiff's counsel has submitted a declaration stating that the requested discovery responses were served on Defendant's attorneys on March 12, 2021. Defendant's request that the Court impose a monetary sanction on Plaintiff in the sum of $4,403.50, pursuant to CCP § 2023.030(a), is GRANTED IN PART. Based on its review of the parties' papers, Defendant has demonstrated that an awa...

Excerpt: ...7. Plaintiff alleges in this case that she sustained injuries to her lower back and left hip. Plaintiff had medical treatment and physical therapy for her injuries for over a year. Plaintiff retained the law firm of Galine, Frye, Fitting & Frangos to represent her in this action against Defendant Hossain. The case settled quickly for Defendant's insurer's $50,000 policy limit. The Notice of Conditional Settlement was filed even before Defendant H...

Excerpt: ...aintiff Sukumar definitely has "standing" to prosecute this action against Defendant Zand. The Court has merely stated repeatedly that it must take Plaintiff's allegations as true at the pleading stage even if there is doubt about their veracity. See Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967. Defendant's suggestion that the Court review the entirety of an earlier filed small claims action to dismiss Plaintiff's case indicates th...

Excerpt: ...of the Fourth Amended Complaint because it is necessary for the Court to review Plaintiff's allegations in making a ruling on Defendant's motion. The Court also reviewed the meet-and-confer transcript attached to the Declaration of attorney Brandon J. Mickle as Exhibit B. The Court here notes for the record that the transcript is 50-pages long. Plaintiff Wilson, a current employee of the Department of Transportation, has held positions as a maint...

Excerpt: ...ntains an Internet website. Customers can make orders on the Internet website and have the orders delivered to them. Defendant has made sales to customers in California over the years. Defendant states that it has decided not to accept any more business from customers located in California since the filing of this Unruh Civil Rights Act lawsuit. Defendant's motion to quash service of the summons for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED WITHOUT...

Excerpt: ...escission; (4) Violation of Civil Code § 1689.7(f) (Home Solicitation Sales Act); (5) Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation; (6) Fraudulent Concealment; and (7) Elder Abuse. Defendant has filed a special motion to strike against Plaintiff as to each of the seven (7) causes of action asserted against it. Defendant claims that Plaintiff's causes of action are all based on its act of recording a PACE lien against her property located at 1680 ...

Excerpt: ...ase was filed on July 11, 2014. On December 14, 2016, the case was reassigned to his department after Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants filed a peremptory challenge against Judge Michael Markman. The current trial date is May 3, 2021. On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff served on counsel for Defendants and Cross- Complainants two notices to appear at trial with documents. One of the notices was directed to Defendant Reclamation, LLC. Plaintiff included 5...

Excerpt: ...prayer at the pleading stage. Defendant's contention that Plaintiff must meet a heightened pleading requirement when seeking punitive damages is overstated. The relevant case authority does not support Defendant's position. In Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 162-163, the plaintiff sued her physician because he performed a tubal ligation on her after the delivery of her baby, even though she allegedly made clear that he was to...