Excerpt: ...ests for judicial notice are DENIED. Exhibits nos. 17‐19 are not part of the Court's file and defendants have not provided the Court with a copy of the material. (Ibid.) Defendants' motion to set aside void defaults and default judgments is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).) The judgment is void on its face as the proofs of service show that defendants Perice Sibley and Capital Mailing Services, Inc. were not served with an amended ...

Excerpt: ...rmane to the disposition of the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Gillette, as trustee's motion for summary adjudication on plaintiff Protech Services, Inc.'s (“Protech”) sixth and fourteenth causes of action for fraud/concealment and computer hacking against the trust in the Yolo County Superior Court action (“Yolo action”) is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) Res judicata and collateral estoppel cann...

Excerpt: ...660‐661.) County of Yolo, and its subsidiary entities, have absolute immunity under Government Code section 844.6. If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312 or further notice is required. ...

Excerpt: ...'s determination of petitioners' petition for writ of mandate. (People, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 268, fn. 6.) Petitioners' motion to augment alleged administrative record is DENIED. Petitioners have failed to provide sufficient legal authority to overcome the well‐recognized rule, which limits the Court's review to the administrative record. (San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission v. Superior Court (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 159, 167; W...

Excerpt: ...480‐ 8488.) It also strikes $1,882.50 of the attorneys' fees for Sims, Lawrence and Arruti not related to the preparation and prosecution of the petition to release mechanic's lien and awards a total of $6,180.00 in attorney's fees. (Ibid.) The attorneys' fees shall be paid by Defendant to Plaintiff by December 31, 2019. The Court taxes the cost the of $32.85 for the certified copy to United Bakery and awards $786.15 in costs to Plaintiff. Defe...

Excerpt: ...de of Civil Procedure section 2025.280, subdivision (a) a deposition notice can only be served on a party to the action. The District Attorney is not a party to the action. The motion to quash the deposition subpoena for personal appearance and production of documents of the person most knowledgeable, Yolo County District Attorney's Office is GRANTED IN PART. The deposition of the Yolo County District Attorney, and all of its agents, employees, o...

Excerpt: ...ndant's request for monetary sanctions against plaintiff is GRANTED in the amount of $400.00. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (i) & 2023.020; Lafayette decl., ¶ 13.) The Court declines to award monetary sanctions for time not yet incurred. Further, sanctions are only awarded for Mr. Lafayette's time spent on the opposition because Ms. Garcia and Mr. Chun have not filed declarations substantiating their time. Mr. Lafayette's statements abo...

Excerpt: ...wsuit under judicial estoppel. Defendants' demurrer as to the first cause of action for “lack of standing/wrongful foreclosure” is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Based on the language in the deed of trust, plaintiff is precluded from maintaining a cause of action premised on allegations that defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. lacked standing to initiate a foreclosure or assign its...

Excerpt: ...ENIED AS MOOT. Defendant Kennedy states that he served responses April 7, 2016. No motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set five, is before the Court. Monetary sanctions against defendant Kennedy are DENIED. Defendant Kennedy served responses within 30 days, excluding the stay of litigation from February 4, 2016 through March 24, 2016. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 391.6, 2030.260, subd.(a).) Monetary sanctions against plaintiff...

Excerpt: ...s not allege that he exhausted administrative remedies as required. (Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 652, 657; cf. Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water District (2019) 7 Cal.5th 372, 376.) The first amended complaint is also uncertain, as its allegations are not sufficient for defendant to reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Th...

Excerpt: ...all required elements for both causes of action against defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 337a; H. Russell Taylor's Fire Prevention Service, Inc. v. Coca Cola Bottling Corp. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 711, 726‐727; Trafton v. Youngblood (1968) 69 Cal.2d 17, 25; Zinn v. Fred R. Bright Co. (1969) 271 Cal. App. 2d 597; UMF 1‐5, 12‐ 16.) Pursuant to the terms of the cardmember agreement, defendant agreed to be jointly and severally bound to the terms o...

Excerpt: ... be determined at trial. The plaintiff's complaint states a cause of action and is not legally uncertain. If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312, or further notice is required. ...

Excerpt: ...able precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his causes of action. (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245.) Plaintiff has also pled sufficient facts to establish the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well‐ defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to...

Excerpt: ...r discovery despite reasonable diligence. (McKelvey v. Boeing North Am., Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 151, superseded by statute on another point.) If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312 or further notice is required. ...

Excerpt: ...D IN PART. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) [“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”].) Defendant served further responses to plaintiff's first set of requests for production of docume...

Excerpt: ...1085; Pub. Resources Code, § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15162, subd. (a).) The Court finds as follows: 1. The project provides the amount of affordable housing as required by the City's affordable housing ordinance. (Ordinance Nos. 2523, 2525; Resolution No. 18‐023.) Even if Ordinance No. 2525 was effective after the affordable housing plan was approved, petitioner has not shown that the City's action was “arbitrary, capricious or entirel...

Excerpt: ...es not consider defendant Gavin Mehl's motion in limine. Defendant's motion was not served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing as required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) To the extent defendant's motion in limine seeks to exclude evidence from plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, defendant has not complied with the required format for written objections to evidence offered in support of a motion for summary judgment. ...

Excerpt: ...ity to support the requirement that discovery responses must include evidentiary facts. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.) Plaintiff's objections to the reply declarations in support of defendants' motion to quash are SUSTAINED, and the declarations attached to defendants' reply are STRICKEN. Defendants may not include new evidence not included in plaintiff's original moving papers in a reply. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Defendant...

Excerpt: ...(San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316.) Defendant's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Defendant's motion to compel the joinder of third party Amy Edwards is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 389, subd. (a).) Defendant fails to show in Ms. Edwards's absence, complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or that she claims an interest relating to th...

Excerpt: ... (a).) On a motion to compel, the burden is on the objecting party to sustain the objection by detailed evidence showing precisely how much work is required to answer; conclusionary statements are not sufficient. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407 [declaration by manager that search of 78 branch offices would be required was insufficient; should show hours required].) Because defendants do not supply supporti...

Excerpt: ...ainder of the objections are OVERRULED. The Eskaton defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).) There are triable issues of material fact as to whether the parking block was an unsafe condition and whether the condition was obviously unsafe. (CACI 1000, 1003, 1004; Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 104, 121; Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, ...

Excerpt: ...tice is DENIED. (Evid. Code, § 452.) The subject documents are extra‐record documents. Petitioner did not give all parties notice of her intention to cite or rely upon any extra‐record documents. (Stipulation and Order, October 22, 2018, ¶ 6.) Petitioner's first amended verified petition for writ of mandate is DENIED. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21168, 21168.5.) The Court finds as follows: A. The Project is not exempt from the California Env...

Excerpt: ...cation was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. An affidavit has not been submitted. Furthermore, defendant has not provided a sufficient explanation for not citing the statute in its original motion. (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 45‐48; Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 5...

Excerpt: ... court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”) Plaintiff states in his “non‐opposition” that “[t]here is correspondence not before this Court stating that Plaintiff was and is cooperating with...

Excerpt: ...de “only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d)(2), emphasis added.) If a triable issue is raised as to any of the facts in a separate statement, the motion must be denied. (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252.) Plaintiff has shown that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to this cause of action. (UMF 7, 8, &...