Excerpt: ...itten operating agreement, at the expense of respondent Garba Wine; and (b) make available to petitioner, or his agent or attorney, for inspection during regular business hours at the office of respondent Garba Wine, the records of respondent Garba Wine described in Corporations Code section 17704.10(b)(1). (Corps. Code, § 17704.10, subd. (f); Petition, ¶¶ 7‐15, Exhibits A, B & C.) 2. The Court orders respondents to give written notice to al...

Excerpt: ...itigation activity that falls squarely within the protective reach of the Anti‐SLAPP statute. (Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 733‐741.) The complaint alleges that plaintiff was injured as a result of defendant's filing of the OSC and contempt actions in the Yolo Superior Court family law case number CV‐2016‐1938. The filing of an Order to Show and affidavit for contempt is protected litigation activity under Code...

Excerpt: ... to his pleading, he is not representing Agri‐Analysis LLC. Mr. Wei can represent himself individually and dba AgriAnalysis, LLC, as a fictitious business name is not a legal entity separate from its (individual or corporate) owner. (Pinkerton's, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1348.) Plaintiff Nano Diagnostics, LLC's motion to strike defendant Agri‐Analysis, LLC's answer is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435, 436, subd. (b...

Excerpt: ...al.4th 180, 196–197; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a).) As the Court's order on defendant Katherine Lewis' special motion to strike and plaintiff's second cause of action are “embraced in or affected by” plaintiff's appeal, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the requested relief. Plaintiff's CCP 1008 application for renewal of CCP 995.240 stay application is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (b).) Plaintiff failed to...

Excerpt: ...companied with costs and fees to the moving party). It is only when a party persists in disobeying the court's orders that the ultimate (“doomsday”) sanctions of dismissing the action or entering default judgment are justified. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 796; Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court's tentative ruling...

Excerpt: ...acts pleaded state a valid cause of action. Plaintiff's allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.) The first amended complaint (“FAC”) contains allegations that defendants owed a legal duty of ordinary care to manage their property, they breached such duty by allowing tree roots from a tree and/or shrub on defendants' property ...

Excerpt: ...University of California's objections to plaintiff's evidence in support of plaintiff's opposition as the evidence objected to is not germane to the disposition of the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Defendant The Regents of the University of California's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) There is a triable issue of material fact as ...

Excerpt: ... for production (set one). (BelaireWest Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 560–561.) The Court has considered all of Communicare's objections and overrules all of them except for the privacy interests of third parties, which the Court holds will be adequately protected by sending “opt out” privacy notices, as discussed below. Our discovery statute recognizes that the identity and location of persons having discove...

Excerpt: ...final and binding arbitration.” (Kasmani decl., ¶ 4, Exhibit 1. § 11.07.) However, this provision permits any party to “seek equitable relief by court action before or after instituting arbitration.” (Ibid.) Therefore, plaintiffs Ishar Dhaliwal, Sarah Clanton, and Nicholas Glass may seek equitable relief from this Court. In all other respects, plaintiffs are compelled to seek relief through arbitration according to the terms of the Stock ...

Excerpt: ...of paragraph 11, plaintiffs do not need to allege compliance with any condition precedent within paragraph 11. (Complaint, ¶ 6, Exhibit A.) Further, plaintiffs' first and second causes of action are explicitly separated into two causes of action. Therefore, plaintiffs' second cause of action is not so uncertain that defendant cannot reasonably respond. (See The Swahn Group, Inc. v. Segal (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 831, 852; Khoury v. Maly's of Calif...

Excerpt: ...Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) Defendant Kulkarni brought the instant motion to compel no later than 60 days after the “completion of the record” of deposition responses (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (b); Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 133–134.) Before bringing a motion to compel further responses, a moving party must meet and confer with the opposing side regarding “each issue presented by the motion.” (Code...

Excerpt: ...ter involved in the pending action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540–541; Alan K. Nicolette decl., ¶ 2, Exhibit A; Sola decl., ¶ 3, Exhibit A.) Defendant Kanit & Kate, Inc. has failed to show that the subject depositions would be “unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigati...

Excerpt: ...ot committed any “procedural dereliction” that rendered judgment against plaintiff “inevitable or a mere formality.” (Gogri v. Jack in the Box Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 255, 267; Franklin Capital Corp. v. Wilson (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 187, 200.) Rather, the Court issued a tentative ruling, on August 11, 2020, denying defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Gogri, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 264; Zapanta v. Universal Care, Inc. (2003)...

Excerpt: ....6(a)(1) is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds that the settlement was made in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6; City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261; Watson decl., ¶¶ 4‐5, 10‐11, Exhibit A.) However, the Court limits the preclusive effect of this order, barring all claims by any joint tortfeasor or co‐obligor against defendant Kevin Thai for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or compara...

Excerpt: ...s given in good faith before verdict or judgment to one or more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort, or to one or more other co‐obligors mutually subject to contribution rights, it shall have the following effect: (a) It shall not discharge any other such party from liability unless its terms so provide, but it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated by the release, the dismissal or the ...

Excerpt: ...tedly filed unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, or conducted unnecessary discovery, or engaged in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. Additionally, defendant fails to demonstrate that “there is not a reasonable probability that Brian 2 of 2 will prevail in the litigation against John. Recently, defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment, leaving causes of action left unchalle...

Excerpt: ...f the Court's July 29, 2020 order granting defendant Katherine Lewis' special motion to strike and for attorney fees and costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 917.1, subd. (a); Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1431‐1434.) Plaintiff fails to address the Code of Civil Procedure section 995.240 factors that the Court must consider in exercising its discretion to waive an undertaking. (Code Civ. Proc., § 995.240; Burkes v. Robertson (2018) 2...

Excerpt: ...ote or memorandum thereof, is in writing and subscribed by defendant or defendant's agent. (Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. (a); Ellis v. Klaff (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 471, 476‐ 477, disapproved on another ground in Sterling v. Taylor (2007) 40 Cal.4th 757; Rest., Contracts, § 207.) Plaintiff Richard Teague may amend his complaint by no later than October 19, 2020 (10 days after the hearing). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(g).) If no hearing is requ...

Excerpt: ...D. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310.) Defendant and cross‐defendant John Coon's motion for dismissal for delay in prosecution is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310.) 2 of 2 The action against defendants Coon and Burgett commenced within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 upon the filing of the plaintiff's original complaint on October 6, 2011. (Bruns v. E‐Commerce Exchange, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 717, 723.) The Code of Civi...

Excerpt: ...osure is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Plaintiffs proffer evidence that they were excused from tendering the amount of indebtedness because the loan modification review process was not complete. (Majd v. Bank of America, N.A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1306‐1307; UMF Nos. 1‐11, 15‐26; Dec. of Alama Ponce, ⁋ 1‐5A‐N, P, Q, U, V‐Z, AA‐LL, 8‐9, 13‐16, 18, 21, 23; Dec. of Williams ⁋⁋ 5, 8 ‐13, Exh. A‐I.) ...

Excerpt: ...Franchise Real Estate, LLC's demurrer to the first, second, and third causes of action in the first amended cross‐complaint is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.) Cross‐complainants have pled their first and second causes of action with sufficient particularity, given that cross‐complainants are asserting cross‐ defendants' nondisclosure of information. (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171...

Excerpt: ... request for admissions filed December 9, 2019, as these documents are part of the Court's file in this case. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.) The Court GRANTS respondent's unopposed request that the Court take judicial notice of Ordinance No. 1509 as a regulatory and/or legislative enactment. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (b), 453.) Respondent County of Yolo's Special Demurrer Respondent County of Yolo's special demurrer to petitioners Vot...

Excerpt: ...002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198–199; Complaint, ¶¶ 4‐7, 46‐49.) Defendant General Motors LLC's demurrer as to the third cause of action for fraudulent inducement‐concealment is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Plaintiff has pled his fraud cause of action with sufficient particularity, given that he is asserting defendant's nondisclosure of information. (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Pla...

Excerpt: ...e administrative record is permitted only within the strict limits set forth in section 1094.5, subdivision (e). (Pomona Valley Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 93,101.) Doe has failed to establish that the evidence is relevant, that he could not with reasonable diligence have produced the evidence at the hearing, or that it was improperly excluded at the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (e).) The notice of motion do...

Excerpt: ...).) Vehicle Code sections 17150 and 17151 do not fall within the Graves Amendment's saving clause. (49 U.S.C. § 30106, subd. (b); Goodson v. Perfect Fit Enterprises, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 508, 514; Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc. (11th Cir. 2008) 540 F.3d 1242, 1249; see also Vehicle Code section 16000 et seq.) Defendant is engaged in the 2 of 3 trade of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and plaintiff has not alleged negligence or ...