Excerpt: ...n to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, and motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents, set one, are DENIED AS MOOT. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, 2031.310.) On February 20, 2025, defendant served amended responses and verifications to these discovery requests. (Urbanic decls., ¶ 10, Exhibits 4 & 5.) Plaintiff's requests for sanctions are DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030,...

Excerpt: ...to when plaintiff Cody Reilly discovered “the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d); see Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42; see also Teitelbaum v. Borders (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 634, 638 - 639; Hertz Drivurself Stations, Inc. v. Ritter (1937) 91 F.2d 539, 543 [a cause of action pursuant to section 338, subdivision (d), does not accrue until th...

Excerpt: ...).) The Court finds that plaintiff Ashley Stewart states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (Del E. Web b Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604; see Voris v. Lampert (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1141, 1150 – 1151; Zaslow v. Kroenert (1946) 29 Cal.2d 541, 550; FAC, ¶¶ 99 - 103.) Defendants' demurrer to the sixth cause of action for fraudulent concealment is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e).) T...

Excerpt: ...ly filed - the applica ble two - year statute of limitations began to run on the date plaintiff was injured, December 15, 2019. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1; see HydroMill Co., Inc. v. Hayward, Tilton & Rolapp Ins. Associates, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1153; Johnson v. Open Door Community Health Centers (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 153, 159; see also Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1109 - 1110; Compl., ¶¶ 1, 25, 35.) If no hearin...

Excerpt: ...iled to provide the Court with any of the exhibits identified in the moving papers. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b) [“The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”]; see Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934, citing Chavez v...

Excerpt: ...they failed to pay all required fees to continue the arbitration within the statutory deadline. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.98, subd. (a); Cvejic v. Skyview Capital, LLC (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1073, 1078.) However, the Court further finds that defendants acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make imposition of the sanctions sought by plaintiff unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1281.98, subd. (c), 1281.99, subd. (b); Snyder De...

Excerpt: ...an authorized pleading. ( See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subds. (b), (c).) The State's request for judicial notice as to item number 1 is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.) However, the Court declines to take judicial notice of the facts contained therein. (See Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564, citing 2 Jefferson's California Evidence Benchbook (2d ed. 1982), § 47.2, p. 1757.) The State's request for judicial notice...

Excerpt: ...va Decl., ¶ 15.) Defendant City of Davis' request for judicial notice 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 eith...

Excerpt: ...er of pages. Motion for rehearing on cross -defendants' motion for summary judgment: Cross -defendants William Parcell and Theresa Parcell's request for judicial notice as to Exhibits A - C and request number 4 is DENIED because the items requested are not the proper subjects of judicial notice. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The Court construes cross - defendants' motion for rehearing on cross -defendants' motion for summary judgment as a motion p...

Excerpt: ...(a); Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 752 [“the court may take judicial notice on its own volition”].) The Court shall afford each party reasonable opportunity before the cause is submitted for 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).) Defendant Ro...

Excerpt: ...rgument or legal au thority found in pages exceeding the maximum permitted number of pages. Defendant Regents of the University of California's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.) However, while the Court may take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, it can only take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of fact and conclusions...

Excerpt: ...he required elements for fraudulent concealment are (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact; (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would have acted differently if the concealed or suppressed fact was known; and (5) the plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealme...

Excerpt: ...s' replies. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d); 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.”].) On the Court's own motion, plaintiffs' motions to compel defendant's further responses to request for admissions, set one, and request for production of documents, set one are CONTINUED to March 26, 2025, at 9:00 a...

Excerpt: ... see Dumas v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 355; see generally Bowley Decl. ISO demurrer).) Despite this insufficiency, the Court will reach the merits of the demurrer. The Court rules on defendants' demurrer as follows: Defendants' demurrer to the first cause of action for battery is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The Court finds that plaintiff Sheryl Cornelius has stated facts sufficient t...

Excerpt: ...6 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1113; Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 57; Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 132.) • Item 12 – court reporter fees: The Court finds that the $250.00 fee for a court reporter on March 17, 2016, was not in this case but in case CV -2012 - 1928. (See Estate of Bauer (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 161, 163 [“Costs are allowable only in the action in which the costs are incurred.”].) Thus, the Court tax...

Excerpt: ...hamrock 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].) In its discretion, the Court considers defendant State of California's untimely demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.40; see Jackson v. Doe (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 742, 750, citing McAllister v. County of Monterey (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 253, 280 - 282 [the trial court's co...

Excerpt: ...chneider & Hosmer. (Notice of Change of Firm Name and Handling Attorney [filed 4/29/24].) Cross -defendants are representing themselves. (Response in Opposition, p. 1.) All documents filed in civil law cases must be filed and served electronically on parties represented by counsel. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.250 et seq; YCR 7.1, 7.2.) Self -represented parties must be served conventionally, unless expre...

Excerpt: ...due on or before May 22, 2024. (Tapper Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3, Exhibit A.) This Court grants sanctions in the amount of $490.00. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2033.280, subd. (c); Tapper Decl., ¶ 4.) The Court declines to award sanctions for time not yet incurred. Defendant is directed to pay sanctions by February 28, 2025. The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court's tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2...

Excerpt: ...ubd. (a); Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 752 [“the court may take judicial notice on its own volition.”) The Court shall afford each party reasonable opportunity before the cause is submitted for 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).) Plaintif...

Excerpt: ...ght discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2017.010, 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224, disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98; Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223 -224; Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) The Court fur...

Excerpt: ...fraud is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Aubry v. Tri -City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) The Court finds that plaintiffs Jae Phoenix and Oakley Phoenix fail to state facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (See Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 347, 362; Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638, 645 [the elements of fraud are: (a) a misrepresentation; (b...

Excerpt: ...ch element of its breach of contract cause of action against defendants 1020 West Capitol Hotel, LLC, Guneet Bajwa, and Sushil Patel (collectively, “defendants”.) (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1); Evid. Code, § 500; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468 [if a defendant fails to meet their burden, their motion must be denied].) The elements necessa...

Excerpt: ...tion to obtain a ttorney's fees. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1033.5, subd. (c)(5), 1005, subd. (b); Civ. Code, § 1717.) Further, to the extent that plaintiff challenges defendant's costs, this Court treats the opposition as a motion to tax costs. (See Alan S. v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 238, 260 [“We thus conclude that Mary's memorandum of July 31, 2008, quacked enough like a duck to be classified as a motion to strike or tax costs...

Excerpt: ... judicially notic eable. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Rutter's Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (“Pract...

Excerpt: ...rah Noel Hazelwood (collectively, “plaintiffs”) motion for reconsideration as follows: Motion to set aside default judgment Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice of Exhibits 1 -6 are DENIED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The 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 ...

Excerpt: ...section 685.070, subdivision (c), which is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.070, subd. (c); see Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193.) The Court finds that plaintiff Parmac 116, LLC, is not entitled to attorney's fees ($26,600.00) because attorney's fees were not awarded as part of the underlying judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.040; see King County Superior Court Judgment attached to the App. For Entr...

Excerpt: ... v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 806, 820, fn. 5.) The Court shall afford each party reasonable opportunity before the cause is submitted for 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).) Plaintiff Espinoza Bail Bonds' renewed motion for leave to file second amended...

Excerpt: ...lar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843, 850; Genisman v. Carley (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 45, 49; Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 915, 925 –926, 946; Lake Almanor Assocs. L.P. v. Huffman -Broadway Group, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1205; Ky. Fried Chicken of Cal. v. Super. Ct. (1997) Cal.4th 814, 819; Gray v. America West Airlines, Inc. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 76, 81; San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Davey Tree Surgery Co....

Excerpt: ...453.) However, “[w]hil e the courts take judicial notice of public records, they do not take notice of the truth of matters stated therein.” (People v. Long (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 586, 591 citing Love v. Wolf (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 378, 403; see Horne v. District Council 16 Internat. Union of Painters & Allied Trades (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 524, 535, citing Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375.) The Court r...

Excerpt: ...identified cos ts totaling $876.16. (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.1700(b).) The Court finds that plaintiff Marium Abid has failed to show that the claimed costs were reasonable and necessary. (See Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 624 [if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs]; see also Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678...

Excerpt: ...ever, due to plaintiff Matthew Rae's failure to respond to those attempts, CalSTRS was unable to do so. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040; Marshall Decl., ¶¶ 14 – 18, Exhibits G – J.) CalSTRS' motion to compel plaintiff's appearance at deposition is GRANTED. (Code. Civ. Proc., §§ 2019.020, 2025.450; Marshall Decl., ¶¶ 4 - 9, Exhibits A, B.) Parties are DIRECTED TO APPEAR and be prepared to select a date on or before January 17, 2025, to con...

Excerpt: ...; Proof of Personal Service, Exhibit A [filed 11/19/24].) All documents filed in civil law cases must be filed and served electronically. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.250 et seq; YCR 7.1, 7.2.) The period of notice is extended by two court days for all moving and supporting papers filed electronically and therefore plaintiffs' motion was untimely served on KAG. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005, subd. (b), 1010...

Excerpt: ...cial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, 453.) While the Court takes judicial notice of the existence of these documents, the Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in the documents. (Bach v. McNelis (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 852, 864 –865; Exhibits 1 - 2.) Plaintiff's evidentiary objections in opposition are OVERRULED. (See Carrasco v. Craft (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 796, 808; Bach, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at pp. 864 –8...

Excerpt: ...nt 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; 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].) Defendants' demurrer to first amended complaint is SUSTAINED WI...

Excerpt: ...ntiff's FAC alleges that Lamothe's role extended beyond a “typical real estate transaction” and instead was he was acting as a de facto general contractor. (FAC, p. 4.) Based on these allegations, defendants have not shown that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (Ibid.) Defendants' demurrer to the second (breach of fiduciary duty) and third (violation of Business and Professions Code section 7026) caus...

Excerpt: ...its of the motion. The Court rules upon defendant's unopposed demurrer to plaintiff Miguel Mejia's first amended complaint as follows: • Defendant's demurrer to the first cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627, 636 [“[t]he burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff�...

Excerpt: ...t to deciding this motion . (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) The Court declines to rule on Alpine's objections to evidence as the evidence objected to is not relevant to deciding this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) The Court notes that it can only grant summary adjudication “if it completely disposes of a cause of action, affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)...

Excerpt: ...nterest in the disclosure of the information that outweighs plaintiff's right to privacy. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010; Evid. Code, § 210; e.g., Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525; Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842 – 843 [“…courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.”]; Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. ...

Excerpt: ...section 2025.450 is not the proper basis for this motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b); see Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934; citing Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 52 [where a motion is supported by a deficient memorandum, the trial court is justified in denying the motion on procedural grounds]; Lara Decl., ¶¶ 4 – 7, Exhibits 1, 2.) Furthermore, even if this mot...

Excerpt: ... Court also notes that Assignee Bounty Recovery failed to include a table of contents or a table of authorities, as required for a memorandum of points and authorities that exceeds 10 pages. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(f).) In the future, the Court may decline to consider contents of any page after 10 pages. (Ibid.) Assignee Bounty Recovery's motion to amend judgment without notice, to add defendants to judgment under alter ego doctrine is ...

Excerpt: ...orp. (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].) Plaintiffs' motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, against defendants Covenant Care Courtyard, LLC and Covenant Care California, LLC, (collectively, “defendants”) are DENIED ...

Excerpt: ... (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 175, 181 – 182.) The Court finds that the doctrine of res judicata precludes plaintiff Elena Portnoy's complaint. (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896 – 897; Colombo v. Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 407, 416; RJN, Exhibits 3 – 6.) Further, plaintiff has failed to satisfy her burden. (Lawrence v. Barona Valley Ranch Resort & Casino (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1369, internal cita...

Excerpt: ...oduction of documents is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Defendant SHALL provide verified responses to plaintiff's demand for production of documents, set one, without objections, by December 6, 2024. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The Court declines to award sanctions for estimated time that was not actually incurred. (See Wallin Decl., ¶ 8.) The notice of motion does not provide...

Excerpt: ...iv. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (c).) “The primary right theory is a theory of code pleading that has long been followed in California.” (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 904.) “Under the primary rights theory, a cause of action is defined as: (1) a primary right possessed by the plaintiff, (2) a corresponding duty imposed upon the defendant, and (3) a wrong done by the defendant which is a breach of such primary right and d...

Excerpt: ...he Notice adequately identifies the grounds for summary judgment, the Notice fails to identify the specific issues or subissues for summary adjudication, as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a); Homestead Sav. v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 499.) • Plaintiff's objection to defendants' separate statement for failing to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d)(1)(B) is SUSTAINED. (See Whitehead v. Habig (2008)...

Excerpt: ...ent may be the proper su bject of judicial notice if there is no factual dispute that the document is genuine and accurate. [Citation]”; SAC, ¶ 26.) The Court notes that plaintiffs MK Construction and Maurice Kalisky (collectively, “plaintiffs”) did not submit a proposed order with their written objections to evidence as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(c). The Court will overlook this technical defect and rule on plainti...

Excerpt: ...roof of service of the moving paper must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing.”].) 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. Demurrer: The Court notes that cross -defendants Maribel Garcia, Maricela Garcia, and Lucy Garcia Robles (“cross -defendants”) failed to proper...

Excerpt: ...ecifically the Mandato ry Arbitration Agreement (“Agreement”). (Harris v. TAP Worldwide, LLC (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 373, 380 [the party seeking arbitration bears the initial burden of demonstrating the existence of an arbitration agreement]; Christensen v. Dewer Developments (19 83) 33 Cal.3d 778, 782; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility Inc. (1994) Cal.App.4th 809, 816 -817; Hayes v. Children Leasing Co. v. NCR Corp....

Excerpt: ...rt, the August 19, 2024, order was issued against plaintiff as the result of her counsel's mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. (Baratti v. Baratti (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 917, 921; Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 234, superseded by statute on other g rounds as stated in Tackett v. City of Huntington Beach (1994) 22 Cal. App.4th 60, 64 [“Where an attorney states that he was unaware of his duty to appear or answer because ...

Excerpt: ...issibility. (Area 55, LLC v. Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP, 61 Cal. App. 5th 136, 152 [despite the authority that says the plaintiff's evidence in opposition to the motion must be admissible at trial, evidence may be considered at the anti -SLAPP motion stage if it is reasonably possible the evidence set out in supporting affidavits, declarations or their equivalent will be admissible at trial].) Plaintiff's special motion to strike cross -compla...