Excerpt: ...aw”; thus, are not a proper basis for reconsideration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a); Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 202; see Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452.) The Court further finds that even if the assignments were considered “new or different facts, circumstances, or law”, HOA has failed to provide any explanation, much less a strong showing of diligence, as to why HOA did obtai...

Excerpt: ...red document is irrelevant to the Court's determination of the instant motion. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268, fn. 6.) Defendant's motion for summary adjudication as to issues 1‐3 is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only 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...

Excerpt: ...tinued noncompliance with the Court's prior orders to provide verified discovery responses to plaintiffs, and to pay monetary sanctions, warrants terminating sanctions. (Ibid.; Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Ottovich (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 706, 712 – 713; Schoech Decl., ¶¶ 4 – 12, 15 – 25, Ex. D.) Price's answer and cross‐complaint are hereby stricken and a judgment by default shall be entered against him. (Code Civ. Proc., ...

Excerpt: ...Defendant's demurrer to the second cause of action within plaintiff's complaint for unjust enrichment is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Plaintiff has alleged the requisite elements to maintain this cause of action. (Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1132; Am. Compl., ¶¶ 16, 40, 58.) Defendant's demurrer to the third cause of action within plaintiff's complaint for a violation of Californ...

Excerpt: ... for leave to amend. The right to amend is limited to the original complaint; there is no right to amend, without leave, an amended complaint. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 472.) Defendant South Tahoe Public Utility District's unopposed request for judicial notice of Exhibits 1 through 5 is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subds. (c), (h); 453.) Defendant's demurrer to the amended complaint and each cause of action on the basis that the complaint fails...

Excerpt: ... Doutherd's second through eighth causes of action (racial discrimination; fraud by employer UPS Freight (concealment and misrepresentation); employment discrimination by UPS Freight harassment and retaliation; additional specific acts of employment discrimination by UPSF, harassment and retaliation after filing 2017 complaint; employment discrimination, lack of accommodation by UPS Freight; medical discrimination and retaliation claims, employer...

Excerpt: ...9.) However, according to defendant's counsel, plaintiff Yuri Romanyuk (“Yuri”) failed to provide any response to the written discovery. (Mayer decl. ISO reply for Yuri written discovery, ¶ 4.) Further, plaintiff Svetlana Romanyuk (“Svetlana”) (1) only provided responses to defendant's form interrogatories and special interrogatories and (2) those responses were unverified. (Mayer decl. ISO reply for Svetlana written discovery, ¶ 4; Mel...

Excerpt: ..., Inc., Cache Creek Cultivators, Inc., and Cache Creek Cannabis, Inc., are bound by the arbitration provisions contained within the Shareholder Agreements. (SAC, Exhibits A, C.) The Court also finds that defendants Mohammed Adi and MJ Greenfield are estopped from denying they were aware of and benefitted from the Shareholder Agreements containing the arbitration provisions; thus, are also bound by said provisions. (Civ. Code, § 1589; Crowley Mar...

Excerpt: ...n…” (Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 772, 787 [“Platypus”].) However, “a trial court must be wary about freely granting a party the right to file an anti‐SLAPP motion past the 60–day deadline.” (Ibid.) “In exercising its discretion in considering a party's request to file an anti‐SLAPP motion after the 60–day period, a trial court must carefully consider whether allowing such a filing is consistent wit...

Excerpt: ...DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480.) The Court finds that the instant motion to compel with regard to the subpoena for plaintiff's health/psych records served upon Advanced Psychiatric Associates is untimely as it was filed/served more than 60‐days after provision of Advanced Psychiatric Associates' response to said subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (b); see Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court of Orange County (2021) 5...

Excerpt: ... Proc., § 1085.) The Court finds that respondent has met its burden of proof under the catch‐all exception to the Public Records Act. (Govt. Code, § 6255, subd. (a); Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1388 ‐ 1389.) The Court finds that respondent has shown that the public interest served by not disclosing the videos clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the videos as follows: (1) Disclosure of ...

Excerpt: ...he controversy raised by the complaint in the instant action was governed by an arbitration agreement. (Radcliffe Decl., ¶ 5; Second Am. Compl., Exs. A, C.) The Court further finds that defendants' discovery requests, requests for site inspections, and deposition notices were premature and placed an undue burden upon plaintiffs; thus, should have been withdrawn, or at the very least postponed, pending the outcome of a motion to compel arbitratio...

Excerpt: ...n to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) While defendant City of...

Excerpt: ...to engage in the discovery process, warrants terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(3); Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 993 [terminating sanctions 3 of 3 are appropriate after repeated failures to provide discovery responses after being ordered to do so]; Wilcoxson Decl., ¶¶ 4 – 9.) The Court orders that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court notes defendants' counsel's statement...

Excerpt: ... dealing causes of action by alleging that ZNEA failed to pay money owed to plaintiff. (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186; Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. The Americana at Brand, LLC (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1244; FAC, ¶¶ 51, 54.) Defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's FAC as to the third and fourth causes of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) “An omission to perform a contract ob...

Excerpt: ...e first, fourth and sixth causes of action within the complaint is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (f)(1), (p)(2).) The Court finds that defendant has established that plaintiff was not subject to an adverse employment action within the one‐year limitations period before she filed her DFEH complaint on November 2, 2017. (Former Gov. Code, § 12960, subd. (d), amended by stats. 2019, c. 709 (A.B.9), § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2020; Gov. Code,...

Excerpt: ...AINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (f); Aubry v. Tri‐City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 2 of 3 Cal.4th 962, 967.) The Court finds that the FAC fails to allege, verbatim, the essential terms of the written contract at issue. (See Rodenberry v. Rodenberry (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 654; Bowden v. Robinson (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 705, 718; FAC, ¶¶ 4 – 6, 15 – 17.) The Court further finds that exhibit 1 to the FAC (the...

Excerpt: ...date, the arbitration hearing has yet to occur. (Briggs Decl., ¶¶ 4, 8, 11 – 14, Exs. 3, 4.) The parties SHALL meet and confer and select a new arbitration hearing date by January 28, 2022, with said hearing to occur before the case management conference set for April 4, 2022. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subds. (a)(1) – (4).) Plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 177.5.) The Court finds that plaintiff has faile...

Excerpt: ...43; Ostling v. Loring (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1731, 1744; Crestmar Owners Assn. v. Stapakis (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1230–1231 [“When amendments to a complaint contain substantive changes….a defaulting defendant against whom the court has not yet entered judgment has the right to appear in the action to answer the amended complaint”].) Defendant shall file an answer to the FAC by no later than January 3, 2022 (10 days after the hearing)...

Excerpt: ...d 597, 600; Trafton v. Youngblood (1968) 69 Cal.2d 17, 25 [“If the account is sent to the debtor and he does not object to it within a reasonable time, his acquiescence will be taken as an admission that the account is truly stated.”]; UMF 9‐16.) 2 of 2 Plaintiff has established all required elements for open book account (issue 1) against defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 337a; see also Interstate Group Administrators, Inc. v. Cravens, Darga...

Excerpt: ...finds that on December 1, 2021, Anderson served a verification to its “further, further” responses to said interrogatories, which were originally served (unverified) on November 1, 2021. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409; Brazier Decl., ¶ 16, Ex, 16; Garratt Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. B.) Sundt's motion to compel “further, further” responses to special interrogatories, set three,...

Excerpt: ...nder uninsured motorist arbitrations”].) The Court finds that applicant has not placed his mental health at issue by filing the present claim with respondent Farmers Insurance Exchange, and respondent acknowledges that it does not seek psychological or psychiatric records. (See Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.) Therefore, the Court limits the subject subpoenas to exclude any medical records related to applicant's mental ...

Excerpt: ...ode Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Defendant's request for judicial notice is GRANTED IN PART. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) While the Court takes judicial notice of document no. 1, the Court declines to take judicial notice of documents nos. 2 and 3 because these documents are irrelevant to the Court's determination of the instant motion. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268, fn. 6 [“Rowland”].) Plaintiff's request for judicial noti...

Excerpt: ... constitute a defense to the complaint. (Ibid; Compl., ¶¶ CC‐1, CC‐2.) Based upon defendant Martha Q. Baeza's admission in her answer, the Court also finds that the defect cannot be cured by amendment, and defendant has not met her burden of showing otherwise. (Pang v. Beverly Hosp., Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 986, 989–990; Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627, 636; see Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318; Answer, ¶ 3(b).) The no...

Excerpt: ... the evidence objected to in making its determination. (Reply, p. 6.) Plaintiff's application for right to attach order is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.010 et seq.) Plaintiff has not “established the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.090, subd. (a)(2); Santa Clara Waste Water Co. v. Allied World National Assurance Co. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 881, 885.) While plaintiff has shown a pr...