Excerpt: ...tion to defendant's MJOP, (6) defendant's reply (in support of its MJOP), (7) this Court's ruling granting defendant's MJOP with leave to amend, (8) plaintiff's third amended complaint, (9) plaintiff's notice of motion and motion for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, (10) declaration of attorney Adam Ambrozy in support of defendant's motion for sanctions pursuant to section 128.7, (11) defendant's request for judicial n...

Excerpt: ...via P. Boehme should not be held in contempt, filed May 26, 2022. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 455, subd. (a).) 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 Doris Wacker's request f...

Excerpt: ... (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 154, 157 – 158 [a second offer to compromise extinguishes the first offer for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 998]; March 17, 2022, Judgment; Houvener Decl., Exhibit C.] The Court thus awards defendant post‐offer expert costs in the amount of $39,027.00. (Houvener Decl., Exhibit D.) The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court's tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counse...

Excerpt: ...ere reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5. subds. (c)(2) – (4).) 2. The motion to strike/tax costs as to court reporter fees ($15,051.59) is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds that while the court reporter's appearance fee at court proceedings is a recoverable cost, the transcripts from those proceedings were not “ordered by the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subds. (a)(9), (11); Gov. Code, �...

Excerpt: ...nd filed separately from the other papers…in opposition to the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b); See Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 531–532.) The Court notes that it can only grant summary adjudication “if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1); see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th...

Excerpt: ...enforceable only if the lessor strictly complies with the specifically described notice conditions. (Kwok v. Bergren (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 596, 600.) Courts have held that because of insufficient notice served upon a tenant, an unlawful detainer complaint failed to state a cause of action. (Baugh v. Consumers Associates, Limited (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 672, 675.) Plaintiff's unlawful detainer complaint relies upon a 3‐day notice to pay rent or qu...

Excerpt: ...ion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of standing by plaintiff as follows: The Court construes the issue of the name of/who is the proper plaintiff [standing], including Jack Duran's representation thereof, as a motion for reconsideration of plaintiff D‐Q University Board of Trustees' motion for preliminary injunction, which the Court DENIES. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a); Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (20...

Excerpt: ...rmane to the disposition of the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Defendant's objections to evidence contained within plaintiff's opposition no. 5 is OVERRULED. The Court declines to rule on all other evidentiary objections as the evidence 3 of 4 objected to is not germane to the disposition of the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Defendant's motion for summary adjudication as to issue no. 1 (general neg...

Excerpt: ...e of action alleges that, notwithstanding the express warranties provided to him, defendant violated this provision. (Complaint, ¶¶ 7, 14, 19‐20.) However, defendant asserts that plaintiff's claim for breach of express warranty fails because the subject vehicle was not a “new motor vehicle” as required. (See Civ. Code, §§ 1793.2, subd. (d)(2), 17.22, subd. (e)(2); Complaint, ¶ 7 [“On May 30, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a used 2011 Hyun...

Excerpt: ...ermination of the instant motion. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268, fn. 6 [“Rowland”].) Defendants' request for judicial notice in support of reply is DENIED because this document is irrelevant to the Court's determination of the instant motion. (Rowland, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 268, fn. 6.) Defendants' motion to expunge lis pendens is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.31.) Expungement of the lis pendens is mandated “if the plead...

Excerpt: ...), 2016.040; Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435; Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431–433; Underwood decl., ¶¶ 5‐14, Exhibits 6‐ 8; Cohen decl., ¶¶ 4‐8.) Denial is without prejudice, however, to permit further informal meet and confer efforts aimed at resolving the matter. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040; Obregon, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at pp. 433–436.) Plaintiff's requests for sanctions are...

Excerpt: ...les of Court, rule 3.1354(b); See Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 531–532.) The Court declines to rule on defendant's evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Aish Khalil, objections 1 and 2, as the evidence objected to is not germane to the disposition of defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) The Court OVERRULES defendant's objections to the Declaration and Second Declaration of Purnima...

Excerpt: ...r the fourth cause of action for negligence, are measured exclusively under Civil Code section 3343. (See Civ. Code, § 3333; Santa Barbara Pistachio Ranch v. Chowchilla Water Dist. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 439, 446–447; cf. Fragale v. Faulkner (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 229, 236‐237 [finding the application of Civil Code section 3343 to limit the plaintiffs' damages, when the plaintiffs brought an action based on a broker's misrepresentation]; SAC,...

Excerpt: ...s DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 685.010, 685.020, subd. (a).) “Only final judgments bear postjudgment interest.” (Hyundai Motor America v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 418, 424.) “A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 577; see also Doudell v. Shoo (1911) 159 Cal. 448, 453 [“A judgment is final when it terminates the litigation between the parties on...

Excerpt: ...ng party]; see Friends of Spring Street v. Nevada City (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1104 [in determining whether a party is a prevailing party the trial court determines whether the party succeeded at a practical level by realizing its litigation objectives and whether the action yielded the primary relief sought in the case]; DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1140, 1157 [the rule is that a partial recovery, a...

Excerpt: ...ages and (2nd) that prejudice to either party is speculative. Thus, bifurcation would not serve judicial economy and efficiency or the interests of justice. SDH's unopposed request to bifurcate the issue of punitive damages, precluding presentation of evidence on SDH's profits or financial condition until after plaintiff has obtained a finding of malice, oppression, or fraud on the part of SDH, is GRANTED. (Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (d).) If no h...

Excerpt: ...de verifications to support his substantive responses to the subject discovery by no later than May 13, 2022. As defendant Hernandez provided timely, hybrid responses (containing objections and substantive responses) to the subject discovery, defendant has not waived his objections. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657‐ 658 [“Food 4 Less”].) Regarding plaintiff's request for further responses, pla...

Excerpt: ...Civ. Proc., § 430.10; See Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against BNT. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The Court finds that there are no allegations in the FAC that BNT has any adverse claim against the title of the subject property, and no amendment can cure this deficiency. (See Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4t...

Excerpt: ...f any party desires to obtain discovery by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a), emphasis added.) The Court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a).) SDH has shown good cause for the proposed mental examination. Plaintiff has placed his mental state in controversy by the alle...

Excerpt: ... permitted number of pages. 4 of 4 Defendants Zero Net Energy Alliance, Inc. (“ZNEA”), Richard Schorske, and Sharon Tobar's request for judicial notice is DENIED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) Defendants failed to make their request for judicial notice in a separate document as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(l).) Defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's second amended complaint (“SAC”) as to the third cause of action (alter ego lia...

Excerpt: ... 453.) Plaintiff's application for right to attach order as to Flower of Life is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.010 et seq.) Plaintiff has satisfied the applicable requirements. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 483.010, 484.020, 484.090.) First, the claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 483.010, 484.090, subd. (a)(1).) Plaintiff's conversion cause of action against Flower of Li...

Excerpt: ...ornia (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1119.) SDH's objection to the declaration of plaintiff, at 8:1‐3 (Din decl., ¶ 30), is OVERRULED. (Evid. Code, § 803.) SHD's objections to the declaration of attorney M. Bradley Wishek, at 5:23‐27 (Wishek decl., ¶ 8), are SUSTAINED. (Evid. Code, §§ 403, 702, 803.) SHD's objections to the declaration of attorney M. Bradley Wishek, at 5:27‐29 (Wishek decl., ¶ 8), are SUSTAINED. (Evid. Code, §§ 403, 70...

Excerpt: ...ed time entries attached as Exhibit A to the declaration of Tessa McGuire. (Evid. Code, §§ 402, 403; McGuire Decl., Exhibit A; see declarations of Boutin, McNairy, McGlone, Miller, Cowan and Jackson.) However, the Court finds that only those time entries that identify fees “incurred in the request for” the Stipulated Judgment (“Judgment”) are relevant. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350; Judgment, ¶ 4.) Regarding those time entries that do not...

Excerpt: ...c., § 128, subd. (a)(5); People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1145–1146.) Defendant does not have standing to bring the present motion to disqualify. (Great Lakes Construction, Inc. v. Burman (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1356– 1357; cf. Blue Water Sunset, LLC v. Markowitz (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 477, 485‐486 & 481.) While a non‐client party may bring a motion to disqualify “whe...

Excerpt: .... (b); Sibley decl., ¶ 14.) Further, plaintiff has provided sufficient justification for propounding 39 special interrogatories on defendant Sibley. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.040, subd. (b), 2030.030; see Usher v. White (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 883, 896–897.) Defendants' motion for protective order regarding requests for admissions and form interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.080.) With the exception of requests for ad...