Excerpt: ...etla are involved in a separate lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Green Foods, LLC v. Nichenametla, Case No. HG19013336 (the "Concurrent Lawsuit"). The Demurring Defendants have received an attachment order against Defendant Nichenametla as part of the Concurrent Lawsuit. In the present action, Plaintiff seeks damages against all Defendants related to Defendant Nichenametla's alleged failure to be officially removed ...

Excerpt: ... based on conduct of various Defendants in regards to the medical treatment of Decedent and her liver cancer. With respect to Eden specifically, the SAC alleges medical malpractice, elder abuse, and related claims. DEMURRER "A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint." (Redfearn v. Trader Joe's Co. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 989, 996.) The Court must determine "whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to sta...

Excerpt: ...annot establish personal jurisdiction over Daimler AG through "specific jurisdiction" concepts. (See Thomson v. Anderson (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 258, 266 [providing that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving personal jurisdiction where a motion to quash has been filed].) Daimler AG is a German stock company whose place of business is in Germany. (See Dec. H. Pak, ¶ 2.) Thus, it is a nonresident defendant. In California, a court may establish ...

Excerpt: ...mmary judgment. Defendant's initial motion was withdrawn prior to the Court issuing a final order. Initially, Defendant's motion fails for procedural reasons. Defendant's motion is based on the premise that Plaintiff "has not and cannot bring forth any evidence to show the essential element of causation in [P]laintiff's sole negligence cause of action . . . ." (See Def.'s Memo., p. 9:26-28.) Where, as here, a moving defendant seeks summary judgme...

Excerpt: ...ces by several hundred thousand dollars. Plaintiff now seeks prejudgment attachment of "[a]ny property of a defendant who is not a natural person." (See Application filed 1/10/2020, p. 2, item 9(a).) Initially, Plaintiff's Application is defective. No Defendant is listed in item 2 of the Application, which was filed with the Court on January 10, 2020. As there are multiple Defendants in the case, this makes it somewhat unclear to the Court who th...

Excerpt: ...m the FAC allegations related to punitive damages, emotional distress damages, and "medical, incidental, and service" damages. (See CCP §§ 435, 436.) The overwhelming majority of Defendants' arguments here contend that Plaintiff's various requests for damages are barred by the mediation privilege. As the Court has already addressed at length in its Order regarding Defendants' demurrer, the mediation privilege is an evidentiary privilege and it ...

Excerpt: ...m the FAC allegations related to punitive damages, emotional distress damages, and "medical, incidental, and service" damages. (See CCP §§ 435, 436.) The overwhelming majority of Defendants' arguments here contend that Plaintiff's various requests for damages are barred by the mediation privilege. As the Court has already addressed at length in its Order regarding Defendants' demurrer, the mediation privilege is an evidentiary privilege and it ...

Excerpt: ...to resolve the action. Plaintiff Kim Embry's unopposed Motion to Approve Proposition 65 Settlement and Consent Judgment is GRANTED. The Court finds the Consent Judgment ("CJ") meets the criteria established by Health and Safety Code section 25249.7, in that: (A) the standards required by the CJ complies with Health & Safety Code sections 25249.6 and 25249.10(c); (B) the CJ requires a clear and reasonable warning in compliance with Health & Safety...

Excerpt: ...t her appropriately during her lawsuit against her ex-husband, with her causes of action largely stemming from attorney malpractice. That prior case involved a mediation. Defendants argue on demurrer that each of Plaintiff's causes of action is barred by the mediation privilege of Evidence Code section 1115 et. seq. However, the mediation privilege is an evidentiary privilege. A demurrer does not adjudicate whether a plaintiff will be able to pre...

Excerpt: ...tiff alleges there was an agreement he would pay for the property by accepting a reduced salary working for Defendants for a period of time. (See SAC, ¶¶ 9-20.) Plaintiff did work for Defendants and has occupied the property. (See SAC, ¶¶ 17, 18.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants have refused to honor the agreement and misrepresented their intentions to him. (See, e.g., SAC, ¶ 31.) Defendants now demur to the SAC. First, Defendants' demurrer suf...

Excerpt: ... Halaby, Senior Civil Engineer for the City of Richmond, filed a complaint with the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE") on or about February 25, 2016 stating that Petitioner refused to submit certified payroll records for work completed in 2015 for a City of Richmond public works project. (Administrative Record ("AR") 3, 66-67, 137-138.) Mr. Halaby felt Petitioner's actions were in contravention of prevailing wage law. (Id.) The ge...

Excerpt: ...deposit of a fraudulent cashier's check, which resulted in Bank's loss of almost $200,000. Bank in turn charged its losses against the accounts of Leader-Picone & Young, LLP ("LLP"), the entity that had presented the fraudulent check to the bank for deposit. LLP filed the Complaint in this action, making various allegations against Bank in regards to the attempted deposit of the fraudulent check and resulting activities. Bank in turn filed a Cros...

Excerpt: ...e Cross-Complaint's First Cause of Action alleging a breach of an oral contract to "provid[e] assistance in obtaining an L1 VISA." (See X-Complaint, ¶ 6.) Cross-Defendants now demur to this First Cause of Action, arguing it is an illegal, and therefore unenforceable, contract to violate immigration laws. A general demurrer lies where the terms of the contract alleged are illegal and therefore void. (See Beck v. Am. Health Group Int'l, Inc. (1989...

Excerpt: ...e a claim upon which relief can be granted. (See CCP § 430.10(a), (e), (f); but see Angie M. v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227 ["Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been [previously] given."].) Defendants' demurrer is SUSTAINED IN PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint no later than 20 days from the date of service of notice of entry o...

Excerpt: ...demurs to the SAC. Defendant's demurrer is SUSTAINED. As written, the SAC fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. (See CCP § 430.10(a), (e), (f).) The Complaint does not appear to be amenable to successful amendment, and therefore the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The complaint against Defendant is DISMISSED. "A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint." (Redfearn v...

Excerpt: ... Demurring Defendants now demur to the causes of action brought against them. As presently alleged, the challenged causes of action as brought against the Demurring Defendants fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (See CCP § 430.10(e); but see Angie M. v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227 ["Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule . . . ."].) However, the Court is not yet convinced that Plaintiffs will be unable t...

Excerpt: ...nsent judgment to resolve the action. MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment is GRANTED. The Court finds the Consent Judgment ("CJ") meets the criteria established by Health & Safety Code section 25249.7, in that: (A) the standards required by the CJ complies with Health & Safety Code sections 25249.6 and 25249.10(c); (B) the warning required by the CJ is clear and reasonable in compliance with Healt...

Excerpt: ...naed Entities") is DENIED. Defendants' alternative motion for a protective order in relation to the Subpoenaed Entities is GRANTED IN PART. In GRANTING IN PART the request for a protective order, the Court limits the scope of the subject subpoenas. In doing so, the Court ORDERS THAT the Subpoenaed Entities are not required or permitted to respond to the following two requests made by Plaintiff, both of which are present in each of the subject sub...