Excerpt: ...n plaintiff's response to the FROG and RPD. Defendant failed to provide any factual arguments or legal authority within its memorandum of points and authorities in support of this aspect of the motion, as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b); Code Civ. Proc„ 52031.310, subd. he Court DENIES the motion as to the objections contained within plaintiff's supplemental responses to defendant's discovery requests, which were provided in resp...

Excerpt: ...earms dealer within California. (Opposition, pp. 2 & 8.) Further, this Court finds that, as owner of the "Group 2" firearms, Lorenzo can direct the disposition of these weapons to a licensed firearms dealer for subsequent sale. (See Henderson v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 622, 530-631; see also Penal Code, SS 30800, subds. & (c) ["possession of any assault weapon... in violation of this chapter is a public nuisance"], emphasis added, 30605, 30...

Excerpt: ...) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 [a precondition to the taking of judicial notce in either its mandatory or permissive form must be relevant to a material issuel.) The Court declines to rule on Gunn's objections to the declaration of Thomas Patrick Jr., as the Court did not rely upon the challenged declaration in determining this motion. The Court rules upon plaintiff Peter C. Craig and cross-defendant Pacific Livestock, Inc.'s motion to tax costs as follow...

Excerpt: ...ted to is not relevant to the disposition of defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., S 437c, subd. (q).) The Court declines to rule on defendant's evidentiary objections to plaintiffs' evidence as the evidence objected to is not relevant to the disposition of defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., S 437c, subd. (q).) Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., S 437c, subd. (p)(2); ...

Excerpt: ...e Civ. Proc., S 425.16, subd. (c)(l).) On September 27, 2021, this Court granted cross- defendants' special moton to strike. (Code Civ. Proc„ S 425.16.) On November 3, 2021, the Court awarded cross-defendants, as the prevailing defendants, $30,555.00 in attorney's fees and $466.85 in costs. (Code Civ. Proc„ S 425.15, subd. (c)(l).) Cross-complainants appealed both orders. On July 28, 2023, this Court received the remittitur from the Third Dis...

Excerpt: ...s ("Zipcar") objections to evidence nos. 1-3 are OVERRULED. The Court declines to rule on Zipcar's remaining objections as the evidence objected to is not relevant to deciding this moton. Civ. Proc., S 437c, subd. (q).) The Court declines to rule on plaintiff's objection to Officer Diaz's video and transcript as the evidence objected to is not relevant to deciding this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., S 437c, subd. (q).) Plaintiff's motion for summary a...

Excerpt: ...ubmitted 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, S 455, subd. Defendant Xinyao Zhou's demurrer and motion to strike are STAYED, pursuant to this Court's inherent authority, pencrng resolution of defendant's appeal, filed on April 12, 2023, Third District Court of Appeal Case No. C098326, and any s...

Excerpt: ...endant's motion for costs is GRANTED IN PART, as follows: 1. The motion as to deposition costs ($6,848.20) is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds that only of these costs are expressly allowed and were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., SS 1032, 1033.5. subds. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700; see Melnyk v. Robledo (1975) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 624.) 2. The motion as to prc„cess server costs ($1,950.00) is GRANTED...

Excerpt: ...strikes the following language from the complaint as to City, only: • „ improperly controlled/enforced speed limits in the above-described roadway, thereby created a hazard and increasing the potential for catastrophic injury and death. (Compl., 38e.) • had other defects or conditions that contributed to the SUBJECT INCIDENT. (Compl., 38g.) The notice of motion provides notice of this Court's tentative ruling system; however, the notice cit...

Excerpt: ...t-A-Car Co. of San Francisco (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1133- 1134 ["When the liability issues are so interrelated that it would have been impossible to separate them into claims for which attorney fees are properly awarded and claims for which they are not, then allocation is not required." l; see also Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 221, 235—236; Adams decl., "15-7.) The Court finds that the hourly rates requested by plaint...

Excerpt: ...h 1403, 1420." Further, "the court's discretion to deny a motion under the statute is limited to circumstances where it is clear that the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was inexcusable, or where it is clear that the withdrawal or amendment would substantially prejudice the party who obtained the admission in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits. (ld. at pp. 1420—1421.) The Court finds that defendant's admissions were the ...

Excerpt: ...15, 422 [a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form must be relevant to a material issue].) The Court SUSTAINS IN PART defendants Regents of the university of California ("Regents") Tracy Grissom ("Grissom") and Mary Elizabeth Floyd's ("Floyd") (collectively "defendants") objections to evidence offered by plaintiff, number 1, on the basis that the third sentence in paragraph 12 of William M. Bowen's...

Excerpt: ...d. Code, SS 452, 453; Code Civ. Proc., S 1005, subd. (b).) Defendant James Murray's general and special demurrer is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc„ 430.10, subds. (e), First, based on the complaint and matters judicially noticeable, defendant has failed to show that plaintiff is not the owner of the property. (See Donabedian, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 994; Complaint, '14.) Second, defendant has not established that the three- day notce to pay re...

Excerpt: ...eprived 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.) First, the Court finds that plaintiff did not unreasonably delay in seeking to amend the complaint. (Cf. Fisher v. Larsen (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 627, 649; Tsivyan decl., "1 4-7.) Second, the Court acknowledges that "t...

Excerpt: ...tion of the motion. The Court rules upon defendants' objection to the declaration of Jenaya Calderilla, D.O., as follows: • The Court declines to rule on defendants' objections numbers 5 through 7 12 — 15]. The Court finds that the evidence objected to is not relevant to the disposition of this moton. • The Court OVERRULES defendants' objections numbers 1 through 4, 8 and 9 1, 4— 11, 16, 17]. (Evid. Code, S 801.) • The Court SUSTAINS de...

Excerpt: ...; PLCM Group v. Drexler (20W) 22 cal.4th 1084, 1095; Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 155 cal.App.4th 1315, 1320 1322; City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 784; see Quantum Ctnking 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; Lipow Decl., 3, 4, 8, Exhibit 1; Lipow Decl. ISO reply, "1 2 — 5.) However, the Court finds that plain...

Excerpt: ...t the costs incurred were not reasonable and necessary to the conduct of the litigation. Civ. Proc., S 1033.5, subd. (a)(l); Chacon decl., 2-7.) 3. The motion to tax deposition costs is GRANTED IN PART. As to "Transcript - Aptus Court Reporting Transcript of Dr. Din Interview 12/31/21," this is a discretionary cost, and defendant has failed to show that this cost was reasonable and necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc„ S ...

Excerpt: ...rt, rule 3.1113(b); see Quantum Ctnking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934; citing Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 52 [where motion is supported by a deficient memorandum, the trial court is justified in denying the moton on grounds].) The Court also notes that this motion was not timely filed based upon the original hearing date of this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., S 1005, subd. (b) [all moving papers must ...

Excerpt: ...(e).) Therefore, the demurrer is properly overruled if one cause of action "is not vulnerable to [this] objection." (Shook v. Pearson (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 348, 351; Bacon v. Wahrhaftig (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 599, see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(a).) The FAC contains sufficient factual allegations to support a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. (Meister v. Mensinger (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 381, 395; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title...

Excerpt: ..., impracticable, or futile" to bring this matter to trial during the pendency of plaintiff River's Side at Washington Square Homeowners Association's ("HOA") writ of mandate challenging this Court's Order on the River's Side defendants' demurrer to HOA's third amended complaint. (Code Civ. Proc, S 583.340, subd. (c); Christin v. superior court (1937) 9 cal.2d 526, 533see setov. Szeto (2022) 86 cal.App.5th 76, 86; see also Kaye v. Mount La Jolla H...

Excerpt: ...uring, LLC's verified answer to plaintiff Bradley Ashmore's complaint — because it was never filed with the Court. The Court notes that as defendant Proterp Manufacturing, LLC, has never made a formal appearance in this action, the opposition to this motion is only being considered as being filed by defendant Proterp Holdings, LP (hereinafter "defendant"). Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees is GRANTED IN PART. (CINIe Civ. Proc., SS 685.040 ...

Excerpt: ...three-phased trial as described in petitioner's moving papers will be conducive to expedition, economy and the ends of justice, the convenience of the witnesses, and the overall efficiency of the handling of this litigation will be promoted. The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court's tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counsel for moving party, or the moving party if unrepresented by counsel, is ordered to...

Excerpt: ...on the same cause of action." (Code Civ. Proc., S 430.10, subd. (c).) However, there are different primary rights asserted in Ruff I (Case No. 0.1-2021-1246) and Ruff II (Case No. 01-2022-1762). (Quiroz v. seventh Ave. center (2006) 140 cal.App.4th 1256, 1278-1279; Bush v. superior court (1992) 10 cal.App.4th 1374, 1384.) While Ruff I asserts injuries to decedent's heirs, Ruff II pleads injuries to decedent. (See Quiroz, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at...

Excerpt: ... Cal.App.5th 1076, 1089 ["New evidence is generally not permitted with reply papers." l.) Defendant's special motion to strike is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc„ S 425.16.) "Litigation of an ant-SLAPP motion involves a two-step process. First, the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims arise from protected activity in which the defendant has engaged." (Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (202...

Excerpt: ...shifts to the responding party to justify the objection. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) The Court finds that plaintiff John Eldon Studarus has failed to meet his burden of justifying the objections to the discovery sought. (Ibid.) Plaintiff is directed to file further responses to defendant's requests for inspection (set one) nos. 1-15, with responsive documents, by October 13, 2023. Defendant's request for sanctions i...