Excerpt: ... v. Lawndale Elementary School Dist. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 113, 131 - 132, 137 -138; FAC, ¶¶ 35- 39.) WCS' demurrer as to the seventh (intentional misrepresentation), eighth (concealment), ninth (promise without intention of performing), and tenth (negligent misrepresentation) causes of action are OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) WCS has not shown that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute these causes of acti...

Excerpt: ...Cal.4th 415, 422 [a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form must be relevant to a material issue].) The Court rules on defendant's demurrer to plaintiff Steven Bennett's first amended complaint (“FAC ” ) as follows: The demurrer to plaintiff's fourth cause of action [fraud] is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., 431.10, subd. (e).) The Court fi nds that plaintiff has pled facts suff icient to state ...

Excerpt: ...DENIED . (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5; see Lake v. Reed (1997) 6 Cal.4th 448, 456 – 457.) The Court finds as follows: 1. Respondent California Department of Motor Vehicles did not abuse its discretion in admitting Exhibits 1 and 2 at the hearing. (Veh. Code, § 135 57, subd. (a); Gov. Code, § 11513, subds. (c), (d); Evid. Code, §§ 1220, 1280; Gananian v. Zolin (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 634, 639 [the object of the hearsay rule exception pursuant ...

Excerpt: ...§ 452, 453.) The proffered documents are not relevant to the Court's determination of this motion. (Rowland, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 268, fn. 6; see Malek, supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 825; Lockyer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 422.) The Court rules upon cross -defendants Ronal d and Linda Chuang's (“the Chuangs”) request for judicial notice as follows: • The Court GRANTS the Chaungs' request as to document 1. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. ...

Excerpt: ... Omidv ar (collectively, “cross -defendants”) filed an untimely reply. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [all reply papers must be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least five court days before the hearing].) Despite being untimely, the C ourt will consider cross-complainants' opposition and cross -defendants' reply. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d); Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (20...

Excerpt: ... P roc., § 437c, subd. (q).) The Court rules on defendants' motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication as follows: The motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff was not a licensed contractor is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd . (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) The Court finds that defendants have failed to meet their initial burden of showing that plaintiff was required to ...

Excerpt: ...e SAC on th e ground that it fails to state any cause of action against individual defendants Trevor Tauzer, Claire Tauzer, and Mark Tauzer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10; see Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to all ege facts sufficient to maintain any cause of action against these individual defendants. (Lab. Code, § 558.1; Usher v. White (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 883, 896 - 897; see Noe v. Supe...

Excerpt: ...quired. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3); Broghammer Decl., McNeil Decl., McNeill Decl.) Still, the Court will reach the merits of these parties' demurrers. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).) The Court rules upon the requests for judicial notice as follo ws: • The Court GRANTS Mogavero's request for judicial notice (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subds. (c), (d), 453.) • The Court GRANTS defendant Villara Corporation's (“Villara”...

Excerpt: ......

Excerpt: ... of Jonathan Ruff, Richard Throp, and Ellisha Thorp agree that a protective order is proper to safeguard defendants' confidential information. (Plaintiffs' conditional nonopposition, p. 2.) However, plaintiffs request revisions to defendants' propos ed protective order. (See Kronenberg decl., ¶ 7, Exhibit 5.) The Court orders the following revisions to defendants' proposed protective order: 1. Addition of a sharing provision that mimics the sha...

Excerpt: ...., § 877.6.) The Court finds that Thermacor Process, Inc. (“Thermacor”) has failed to demonstrate that this settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to the Tech - Bilt factors “as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.” (Tech -Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward -Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499- 500 [“Tech-Bilt”]; C ode Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d) [“The party asserting the lack of go...

Excerpt: ...Lauryn Stockert, is an indispensable party to this case, and why DWS is precluded from joining her in this case as a defendant. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [stating that a demurrer's limited purpose is “to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint”].) Defendant further fails to establish that this cause of action, as presently plead, fails as a matter of law. (Ibid.; Complaint ¶¶ 8, 13 -16.) Defendant's d...

Excerpt: ...ion].) Defendant County of Yolo's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (b), (h), 453.) The Court rules on defendant's demurrer to plaintiffs Michele Flores and Ryan Campbell's petition for writ of mandate and complaint (“Pet. & Compl.'), as follows: Defendant's demurrer to the first cause of action [writ of mandate] is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Aubry v. Tri -City Hosp...

Excerpt: ...es t for judicial notice as to all other documents is DENIED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The proffered documents are not relevant to the Court's determination of this motion. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268, fn. 6; see Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825; People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 [a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or ...

Excerpt: ...k Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 [a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form must be relevant to a material issue].) The Court rules on defendant's unopposed demurrer to plai ntiff Ryan Stanfield's first amended complaint as follows: The demurrer to plaintiff's fourth cause of action [fraud] is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., 431.10, subd. (e).) The Court finds that plaintiff has pled facts su...

Excerpt: ....) Plaintiff Michael Bisch's motion to set aside orders by a disqualified judge as void and remedy the disqualified judge's failure to disclose conflict is DENIED. Plaintiff seeks to set aside all orders rendered by Judge Rosenberg. Plaintiff's motion specifically seeks to set aside an order issued on October 17, 2023, denying plaintiff's motion to resolve discovery dispute (“discovery dispute order”). However, Judge Fall presided over th...

Excerpt: ... decision by the Court to present to the Court information relevant to (1) the propriety of taking judicial notice of the matter and (2) the tenor of the matter to be noticed. (Evid. Code, § 455, subd. (a).) Cross -defendant's first amended request for j udicial notice is GRANTED IN PART. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The Court takes judicial notice of Exhibits 1 -5 and 7 -8. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) However, the Court declines to take j...

Excerpt: ...300(c) [“Proof of service of the moving paper must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing”].) The Court also notes that petitioner has failed to show a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolu tion of each issue presented prior to the filing of this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2025.280, subd. (b); Green Decl., ¶ 12, Exhibit 10.) Oppenheim's request for judicial notice is D...

Excerpt: ...the docume nts. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The proffered documents are not relevant to the Court's determination of this motion. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268, fn. 6 [Rowland]; see Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825 [M alek]; People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 [Lockyer] [a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form m...

Excerpt: ...(a), 395, subd. (a), 396b, subd. (a).) “Where an action is brought against both corporate and individual defendants, venue is proper for the action as a whole if it is correct as to any defendant.” (Buran Equip. Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Ca l.App.3d 1662, 1666 [emphasis added].) “[T]ort claims against a corporation [may] . . . be tried in any county in which the ‘liability arises' as well as in the county where the corporation's pr...

Excerpt: ... (1992 ) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) The Court finds that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action because plaintiff failed to file the requisite affidavit. (Civ. Code, § 1780, subd. (d).) The demurrer to the sixth cause of action (ne gligence) is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); see Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court finds that as the basis for the sixth c...

Excerpt: ...that plaintiffs have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for all plaintiffs. (Lab. Code, § 226, subds. (f), (h); Johnson v. Clark (1936) 7 Cal.2d 529, 536 [a complaint is invulnerable to general demurrer if on any theory it states a cause of action]; see Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.) • Defendant's demurrer to the second cause of action for a violation of Labor Code s...

Excerpt: ...; see Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825 [Malek]; People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 [Lockyer] [a precondition to the taking o judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive orm must be relevant to a material issue].) Deendant South Tahoe Public Utility District's request or judicial notice is DENIED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The pro
¯ered documents are not relev...

Excerpt: ...nt to constitute this cause of action. Plainti
¯ alleges that her termination was substantially motivated by complaints about a rumor, which was not based upon her gender, and no amendment can cure this deÞciency of the complaint. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a); Caldwell v. Paramount UniÞed School Dist. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 189, 202, fn.7; Guz v. Bechtel Nat., Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354, fn. 21; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318...

Excerpt: ...., Zinn decl. [Þled January 12, 2024], ¶¶ 30-48; Tsivyan decl. [Þled January 26, 2024], ¶¶ 2-4.) If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is e
¯ective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required. Defendant's motions to compel further responses to discovery Plainti
¯'s request for judicial notice in opposition to defendant's motions to compel further discovery respo...

Excerpt: ...to compel defendant City of Davis (“defendant”) to further respond to request for production of documents, set one, is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) As to RFP nos. 1-8, and 14, the Court Þnds that defendant must produce the requested documents in its possession, custody, or control from 2009 to present. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.210, subd. (a)(1), 2031.220.) As to RFP nos. 4-8, and 12, defendant has not provided a ve...

Excerpt: ...ods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 [a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form must be relevant to a material issue].) The Court declines to rule on defendant's evidentiary objections to plainti
¯'s evidence as the evidence objected to is not germane to the disposition of defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANT...

Excerpt: ... LLC's urther response to demand or production numbers 1 & 2 is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) Deendant agreed to supplement its responses to requests 1 & 2, but plainti
¯ has not yet received them. (Smith decl., ¶ 13, Ex. 10, 12/11/23 e-mail exchange.) Deendant is DIRECTED to serve supplemental responses by February 7, 2024. • Plainti
¯'s motion to compel deendant's urther responses to demand or production numbers 3, 5, & 1...

Excerpt: ...tute this cause of action. Plaintiff alleges that her termination was substantially motivated by complaints about a rumor, which was not based upon her gender, and no amendment can cure this deficiency of the complaint. (Gov. Code, S 12940, subd. (a); Caldwell v. Paramount Unified School Dist. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 189, 202, fn.7; Guz v. Bechtel Nat., Inc. (2000) 24 cal.4th 317, 354, fn. 21; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 cal.3d 311, 318; compl., 11 �...

Excerpt: ... Kaplan has produced evidence establishing that his conduct did not fall below the requisite standard of care, negating the breach of duty element. (Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 501, 606-607; UMFs 1-18; Shen decl., 3, 6, 17, 19.) Plaintiff has not shown that a triable issue of material fact exists. (Code Civ. Proc., S 437c, subd. (p)(2).) If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant...

Excerpt: ...laire Tazuer, and Mark Tauzer. (Code Civ. Proc., S 430.10; Aubryv. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 952, 967.) The Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to maintain any cause of action against these individual defendants based upon alter ego liability or joint and several liability. (Lab. Code, S 558.1; see Leek v. cooper ( 2011) 194 cal.App.4th 399, 415; see also Noe v. superior court (2015) 237 cal.App.4th 3...

Excerpt: ...ncertainty as a basis for their demurrer. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(a) ["Each ground of demurrer must be in a separate paragraph and must state whether it applies to the entire complaint, cross- complaint, or answer, or to specified causes of action or defenses."l; see also Code Civ. Proc., S 430.60; Notice of demurrer, p. 2.) Defendants' unopposed demurrer to the FAC based on the failure to state a cause of action is OVERRULED. (Code Civ...

Excerpt: ... 6; see Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825; People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 [a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form must be relevant to a material issue].) The Court rules upon plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings as follows: • The moton is DENIED as it pertains to plaintiff's verified complaint stating facts s...

Excerpt: ...cument is genuine and accurate. [Citation]" ; Compl., 26.) Defendants' demurrer to plaintiffs' complaint as to defendant Cheryl walker, individually, is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., S 430.10, subd. (e); cal. Rules of court, rule 3.1320(g); see Buss v. J. O. Martin co. (1966) 241 cal. App. 2d 123, 133; Aubry v. Tn-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) The Court finds that, based on the ShortForm Settlement Agreement e...

Excerpt: ...e causes of action are not duplicative. (Award Metals, Inc. v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d. 1128, 1135; Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn„ Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 cal.App.4th 268, 290; complaint, 25-33, 72-76.) WCS' demurrer as to the fourth cause of action (sexual battery) is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., S 430.10, subd. (e).) The complaint fails to allege this cause of action with sufficient particularity. (C...

Excerpt: ...tute this cause of action. Plaintiff alleges that her termination was substantially motivated by complaints about a rumor, which was not based upon her gender, and no amendment can cure this deficiency of the complaint. (Gov. Code, S 12940, subd. (a); Caldwell v. Paramount Unified School Dist. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 189, 202, fn.7; Guz v. Bechtel Nat., Inc. (2000) 24 cal.4th 317, 354, fn. 21; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 cal.3d 311, 318; compl., 11 �...

Excerpt: ...ion. (Code Civ. Proc., 916, subd. (a); see Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189— 190, 196 199.) The case management conference set for this date is hereby VACATED. If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required. Moton to stay: Defendant request for judicial notice as to Item K is GRANTED. (E...

Excerpt: ... document is genuine and accurate. [Citation]" ; Compl., 26.) Defendants' demurrer to plaintiffs' complaint as to defendant Cheryl walker, individually, is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc„ S 430.10, subd. (e); cal. Rules of court, rule 3.1320(g); see Buss v. J. O. Martin co. (1966) 241 cal. App. 2d 123, 133; Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) The Court finds that, based on the ShortForm Settlement Agreem...

Excerpt: ... see Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 417; Compl., 5, 9, 10, 13.) Defendants' motion asto the second cause of action for recovery under quantum meruit is DENIED. (Code Civ, Proc., S 438.) The Court finds that defendants have failed to provide any argument or legal authority that this cause of action is inconsistent with an oral [versus written] contract. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.113(a); see Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Assoc...

Excerpt: ... 187, 193 [the nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it].) All papers opposing a motion must be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least 9 court days before the hearing, unless the court or judge has prescribed a shorter time. (Code Civ. Proc., S 1005, subd. (bj.) Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on November 14, 2023. Nine court days before the hearing date (November...

Excerpt: ...court finds that this cause of action may not be maintained against a public entity like defendant. (See Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 164 — 165.) Defendant's demurrer to the second cause of action for intentional infliction of financial losses is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., S 430.10, subd. (e); Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 cal.4th 962, 967.) The court finds that plaintif...

Excerpt: ...paration; thus, the Court taxes the claimed costs in the amount of $180.00. (Code Civ. Proc., S 1033.5, subds. (a)(l), (c)(2); Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 618, 624.) • Item 4— deposition costs ($26,141.39): The Court finds defendant has claimed fees that are unsupported by the documentation provided, or relates to fees for expert witness that are expressly not allowed; thus, the Court taxes the claimed costs in the amount of $15,77...

Excerpt: ...ition. (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.1300(d); see Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202; see also Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 262 [stating that "a trial court has broad discretion to accept or reject late-filed papers."].) The Court rules upon Yolo County's demurrer and motion to strike plaintiffs' second amended complaint ("SAC") as follows: Yolo County's demurr...

Excerpt: ...., S 437c, subd. (q).) The Court declines to rule on defendants' objections to evidence as the evidence objected to is not relevant to deciding this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., S 437c, subd. This Court construes defendants' motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication as a motion for summary judgment. (See Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193 [the nature of a motion is determi...

Excerpt: ...; see Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 417; Compl., 5, 9, 10, 13.) Defendants' motion asto the second cause of action for recovery under quantum meruit is DENIED. (Code Civ, Proc., S 438.) The Court finds that defendants have failed to provide any argument or legal authority that this cause of action is inconsistent with an oral [versus written] contract. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.113(a); see Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Asso...

Excerpt: ...35.5, subd. (a)(4).) Demurrer: Polley's demurrer to the third cause of action (civil RICO 18 U.S.C. S 1961 et seq.) within defendants/cross-complainants Ravinder Tumber and You Only ive Once Farms LLC's ("cross- complainants") cross-complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., S 430.10; Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 957.) The Court finds that the cross-complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitu...

Excerpt: ... Cal.App.4th 187, 193 [the nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to itl.) All papers opposing a motion must be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least 9 court days before the hearing, unless the court or judge has prescribed a shorter time. (Code Civ. Proc., S 1005, subd. (b).) Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on November 14, 2023. Nine court days before the hearing da...

Excerpt: ...ails to demonstrate that the costs incurred were not reasonable and necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., S 1033.5, subd. (a)(l); Chacon decl., "1 2-7.) 3. The motion to tax deposition costs ($25,068.68) is GRANTED IN PART. As to "Transcript - Aptus Court Reporting Transcript of Dr. Din Interview 12/31/21" ($2,055.59), this is a discretionary cost, and defendant has failed to show that this cost was reasonable and necessar...

Excerpt: ...alek]; People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 [ex rel. Lockyer) [a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form must be relevant to a material issue].) Defendants Dignity Health and Dignity Community Care's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, SS 452, subd. (d), 453.) Plaintiff's motion for relief from stay is DENIED. The Court finds that plaintiff has fa...

Excerpt: ...n plaintiff's response to the FROG and RPD. Defendant failed to provide any factual arguments or legal authority within its memorandum of points and authorities in support of this aspect of the motion, as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b); Code Civ. Proc„ 52031.310, subd. he Court DENIES the motion as to the objections contained within plaintiff's supplemental responses to defendant's discovery requests, which were provided in resp...