Excerpt: ... (Gov. Code, § 946.6.) “[P]etitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence the necessary elements for relief.” (Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 171, 175.) While the petition contains allegations that the failure to present the claim was through “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” such allegations are not supported by any evidence. (Ibid.; Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c); Pet...

Excerpt: ...efendants have agreed to dismiss their first, sixth, eleventh, and twelfth affirmative defenses. Further, regarding the second, fourth, seventh, and tenth affirmative defenses, defendants' answer fails to state facts sufficient to constitute these defenses to the complaint. (Ibid; FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384; Metropolis Trust & Sav. Bank v. Monnier (1915) 169 Cal. 592, 596.) As to defendants' seventh affirmat...

Excerpt: ...plaintiffs Cesar Caballero and Miwok Nation (Tribe)'s objection to defendant's request for judicial notice exhibit 5 is OVERRULED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs Cesar Caballero and Miwok Nation (Tribe)'s request for judicial notice is DENIED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The proffered documents are not relevant to the Court's determination of the instant motion. (Rowland, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 268 fn. 6.) Therefore, defendant Robert Chavez's objections to ...

Excerpt: ...le outcome of the litigation is the determination that the disputed property is in fact Indian trust land. If that outcome is possible, then a state court is barred from assuming jurisdiction of the case.” (Boisclair v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1140, 1152.) In the case of section 1360(b) the concern is not whether a federal question exists that would allow a federal court to assume jurisdiction, but rather whether a dispute over Indian l...

Excerpt: ... 214 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1057.) The Court cannot consider extrinsic evidence. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881; Wells decl.) Based on the allegations in the complaint and the documents attached thereto, plaintiff served the three‐day notice to quit in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1162(a). (See also Code Civ. Proc., § 1161a, subd. (b).) Defendant Robert Wells shall file his answer by no later than J...

Excerpt: ... separate alleged harms: denial of plaintiff's claim and an ongoing practice of unlawful or unfair conduct. (See, e.g., Complaint, ¶¶ 26‐30, 39‐48.) As monetary damages will not remedy both harms, such a remedy is inadequate. (Philpott v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1934) 1 Cal.2d 512, 517; Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303, 316; Complaint, ¶ 45.) Further, the complaint alleges that defendant c...

Excerpt: ...al.App.3d 864, 872; Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 160; Civ. Code, § 3294; Complaint, pp. 4‐5.) While “the act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute an act of ‘malice' under [Civil Code] section 3294,” plaintiffs have not alleged “circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences” as required. (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 892 & 899; D...

Excerpt: ...r otherwise show there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent's pleading. (Doe v. Good Samaritan Hosp. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 653, 661.) First, defendants' separate statement does not separately identify each cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350, subd. (d)(1)(A).) The first amended complaint contai...

Excerpt: ...ions is GRANTED, in the amount of $660.00 against plaintiff Yeimi Lopez. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030; Marques decl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that the imposition of a sanction against her would be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a); Johns decl., ¶ 3.) Given the relative simplicity of the motion, the Court finds the requested attorney's fees unreasonable. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions for...

Excerpt: ...c. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384; FAC, ¶¶ 50‐52, 77‐83.) Further, plaintiff has adequately stated facts alleging “safety concerns posed by the vehicle.” (Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 824, 836; FAC, ¶¶ 15‐16, 35‐36.) However, plaintiff's third cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule because plaintiff has failed to plead facts “demonstrat[ing] harm above and beyond a broken con...

Excerpt: ...E; Underwood decl.,¶ 4, Exh. B.) Defendant has the burden to justify his objections and fails to justify his objections based upon third party privacy rights or any other objections timely asserted. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220‐221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) Defendant's supplemental, amended response to FROG 12.4 is insufficient as defendant raises untimely new objections and ha...

Excerpt: ...gence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment against defendant. (FAC, pp. 4‐7.) Further, plaintiff has alleged negligence by defendant to overcome the Graves Amendment. (49 U.S.C. § 30106, subd. (a); Defendant's RJN; FAC, pp. 4‐7.) Specifically, as to the fourth cause of action for negligent entrustment, a “rental car agency is prohibited from renting a car to an unlicensed driver, and must ‘make a reasonable effort' to determine ...

Excerpt: ...t is well established that a former employer may properly respond to an inquiry from a potential employer concerning an individual's fitness for employment, and if it is not done maliciously such response is privileged.” (Neal v. Gatlin (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 871, 877; see also Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (c).) The FAC alleges that defendant's response to the inquiry from a potential employer was reckless and malicious. (FAC ⁋⁋ 58‐ 65.) Defenda...

Excerpt: ...) Compliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. (Sakaguchi v. Sakaguchi (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 852, 858.) Actual notice of the action alone is not a substitute for proper service of process and is not alone sufficient to confer jurisdiction. (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 392.) A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summ...

Excerpt: ...dlord shall be precluded from recovering COVID‐19 rental debt in connection with any award of damages.” Rental Debt is defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 1179.02 subdivision (c) as “[u]npaid rent or any other unpaid financial obligation of a tenant under the tenancy that came due during the covered time period.” The covered time period is between March 1, 2020 and January 31, 2021. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1179.02, subds. (a).) In res...

Excerpt: ...2, Exhs. C‐ F.) County of Yolo's motion to compel further response to requests for admissions, set one, is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).) The Court finds that plaintiff Virgrow Organics, Inc.'s supplemental responses were sufficient under the Discovery Act. County of Yolo's motion to compel further response to form interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART, only as to the request that plaintiff Virgrow Organics, Inc. produce suffic...

Excerpt: ... challenged for its fee award. With regard to the declaration of Raymond Boucher in support of plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, the Court overrules objections 1‐2, 29‐39. The Court sustains objections 3‐28, 40. With regard to the declaration of Arielle E. Brown in support of defendant FCA's opposition to plaintiff's motion, the Court overrules all objections. With regard to the declaration of Arrielle E. Brown in ...

Excerpt: ...4th 60, 71‐72.) The previous motion filed on January 15, 2016, was a motion for summary judgment, not a motion for summary adjudication and it addressed the issue of standard of care. Defendant Daniel J. Kennedy's objection to plaintiff Brian Scaccia's separate statement is OVERRULED. Defendant Daniel J. Kennedy's objections to plaintiff's evidence numbers 1‐20 are SUSTAINED IN PART. Dr. Kennedy's objections numbers 2‐6, and 8 are SUSTAINED...

Excerpt: ...t is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) & (f).) Plaintiff has pled her fraud cause of action with sufficient particularity, given that she is asserting defendants' nondisclosure of information. (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384; FAC, ¶¶ 90‐92, 94, 106‐110, 160‐163, 174‐178.) However, plaintiff's third cause of action is barred b...

Excerpt: ...& Snyder (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1509, 1512; Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1207, 1215.) Petitioner Pietro Giordano's petition for writ of mandate is GRANTED IN PART, as follows: 1. The Court issues a peremptory writ of mandate, ordering respondents to: (a) make and mail or deliver to petitioner the information and financial statements required by Corporations Code section 17704.10, including a ...

Excerpt: ...(Briggs v. Briggs (1889) 80 Cal. 253, 256; Read v. Johnson (1931) 213 Cal. 432, 437.) As the cause of action continues, and the current successor in interest stands in the shoes of the original plaintiff, this Court holds that defendant must provide responses to the discovery requests propounded by or on behalf of the original plaintiff. Defendant's untimely service of responses containing objections does not divest this Court of jurisdiction to ...

Excerpt: ...on and the 60‐ day notice attached to the complaint because the Court previously denied defendant's requests for judicial notice of these documents in Case No. CV‐2019‐2712 is erroneous. (See Zevnik v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 76, 82; Defendant's RJN, Exhibits 2 & 3.) Further, 85 Federal Register 55292 (Sept. 4, 2020) temporarily halts evictions for nonpayment of rent. (Defendant's RJN, Exhibit 1.) As plaintiff's complaint is n...

Excerpt: ...tal agreement regarding the property, there is no agreement for plaintiff to attach to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1166, subd. (d)(1)(B); Complaint, ¶ 5.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1946.2 does not apply because defendants did not “continuously and lawfully” occupy the subject residence, based on the 60‐day notice to quit attached to the complaint. A civil case cover sheet is not a pleading and therefore, is not subject to dem...

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: ...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: ... 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: ....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: ...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: ...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 ...

Excerpt: ...any's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Code Civ. Pro., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Defendant has failed to show that the pending dispute is “not one that is appropriate for declaratory relief.” (Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1402.) Specifically, the undisputed evidence shows “both continuing contractual relationships and future consequences for the conduct of the relationship that depended on the court's...

Excerpt: ...r's evidentiary objections made within her separate statement in support of her opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment because “[a]ll written objections to evidence must be served and filed separately from the other papers…in opposition to the motion.” (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b).) Defendant Mary Helen Leet's motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication is DENIED, without prejudice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c...

Excerpt: ...gence in prosecution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.130.) The competing considerations to be evaluated in a motion to dismiss for delay in prosecution are the policies of discouraging stale claims and compelling reasonable diligence balanced against the strong public policy which seeks to dispose of litigation on the merits rather than on procedural grounds. (Van Keulen v. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 122, 131.) In considering a ...

Excerpt: ...bor Code section 1102.5. (Manavian v. Department of Justice (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1127, 1141; Complaint, ¶¶ 14, 30, 32, 35, 46, 49.) Defendant's general and special demurrers to the second and third causes of action in plaintiff's complaint are SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) & (f).) The alleged violation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (“POBRA”) occurred after plaintiff's e...

Excerpt: ...requests for production nos. 1‐3, 5‐20, 24‐37, and 40‐79. (Ibid.) The Court also orders plaintiff to provide a privilege log as required by its responses to defendant's request for production, set one. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c).) Plaintiff shall include all redacted documents in its privilege log. (Ibid.) Finally, the 2 of 2 Court orders plaintiff to produce responsive documents to request for production nos. 5, 6, 8, and 9...

Excerpt: ...on shall be scheduled and completed by no later than October 8, 2020. In all other respects, plaintiff's motion is denied. The motion does not “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production” of the requested documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).) Further, plaintiff failed to submit a separate statement with the motion, regarding his request to compel answers at a deposition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule...

Excerpt: ...Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.260 subd. (a). 1010.6 subd. (4)(B).) The motion was filed prior to the date that the responses were due. Sutter health Sacramento Sierra Region's request for sanctions is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023,010, subd. (h), 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no substantial justification for plaintiff's filing this motion prior to the date the responses were due. Plaintiff shall pay defendant Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region...

Excerpt: ...efendant WUSD has provided adequate responses and proper objections to these discovery requests. Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set two, from defendant WUSD is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) While defendant WUSD's vague and overbroad objections are proper, a responding party must answer an interrogatory to the extent possible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (b).) Accordingly, def...

Excerpt: ...tiz's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) Defendants' demurrer to plaintiffs' complaint is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Plaintiffs' complaint was timely filed under the Government Tort Claims Act, given the applicability of Emergency Rule 9. (Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)(1); Emergency Rule 9.) Further, plaintiffs have alleged statutory authority establishing liability for the City of Woodl...

Excerpt: ...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 & Planning Assn.,...

Excerpt: ...n to defendants' motion for summary judgment. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b).) However, the Court does not consider defendants' UMF 12 in ruling on the instant motion. (Reeves v. Safeway (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 95, 105‐106.) Defendants Walgreen Co. and Irma Moreno's evidentiary objection no. 3 is OVERRULED. The Court does not reach defendants' other evidentiary objections as the evidence objected to is not germane to the disposition ...

Excerpt: ...(p)(1).) Triable issues of material fact exist as to the amount of money that defendant owes plaintiff and whether the amounts on plaintiff's statement of account were sent to defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 337a; Trafton v. Youngblood (1968) 69 Cal.2d 17, 25; UMF 2‐4.) The Court does not consider the additional evidence attached to plaintiff's reply because it was not authenticated and plaintiff failed submit this evidence with its moving pa...

Excerpt: ... 438.) Plaintiff's third cause of action for fraudulent inducementconcealment is barred by the economic loss rule because plaintiff has failed to plead facts “demonstrat[ing] harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise.” (Food Safety Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1130; Complaint, ¶¶ 159‐ 179.) Absent allegations of affirmative misrepresentations, plaintiff's third cause of action does not s...

Excerpt: ...of the sixty‐day notice to quit (Exh. 1) is DENIED. (Evid. Code, § 452.) Plaintiff's objection to defendant's request for judicial notice of the sixty‐day notice to quit (Exh. 1) is SUSTAINED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 1200.) Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Defendant Krista Mitchell's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Defendant fails to establish...

Excerpt: ...tant motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Defendant Joanna Malson's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his hostile work environment harassment cause of action against defendant Malson prior to initiating the instant action. (Gov. Code, § 12960, subd. (c); Cole v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th ...

Excerpt: ...DENIED. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The summary judgment procedure, inasmuch as it denies the right of the adverse party to a trial, is drastic and should be used with caution. (Hyunh v. Ingersoll‐Rand (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 825, 830.) Moreover, any doubts about the propriety of summary adjudication must be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. (See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889, ...

Excerpt: ... discovery above the 35 statutory amount is necessary in this action. On July 16, 2020, defendant served unverified responses to form interrogatories, set one. As defendant prepared answers to the form interrogatories the motion for protective order is MOOT. Defendant shall serve plaintiff with the verification for the form interrogatories on plaintiff by August 11, 2020. Defendant served some responses to the request for special interrogatories,...

Excerpt: ...one year statute of limitations began to run by October 19, 2016 when plaintiff Ms. Boulett discovered her injury and suspected the injury was caused by wrongdoing. (Sanchez v. South Hoover Hospital (1976) 18 Cal.3d 93, 102; Drexler v. Petersen (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1190; Sutter Defendants UMFs 11‐19 .) Even with a 90 day extension, there is no material issue of disputed fact that the statute of limitations to bring plaintiff's action expi...

Excerpt: ...ct of reasonable dispute by the parties and not a proper subject for judicial notice. (Ibid.) Defendants' demurrers to plaintiff's first amended complaint are SUSTAINED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.) Defendants Bentec HoldCo, Hermitage, Brinkley, and Greyrock demurrer as to plaintiffs' first cause of action (breach of contract) and second cause of action (breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing) are SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE ...

Excerpt: ....) (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6‐7.) The first amended complaint does not include specific facts or allegations to support a claim for punitive damages against defendant as required. Additionally, an award of attorney's fees must be supported by either statutory authority or a contractual agreement. Plaintiff's causes of action against defendant are for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. As this action against defendant is not based on a con...

Excerpt: ... 2 of 3 Plaintiff's first cause of action: Defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's first cause of action for enticement of minors is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (f).) Plaintiff's first cause of action, is not fatally ambiguous or uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) Plaintiff has pleaded that defendants provided smart phone, service plan, and gaming computer as “enticements” under the statute, over and above...

Excerpt: ....) Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.) Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in furtherance of justice. (Code Civ.Proc., § 473.) That trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state since 1901. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488–489.) The fa...

Excerpt: ...terial facts show that plaintiff cannot establish that defendant breached the contract/settlement agreement as a matter of law. (UMF 1‐130.) Plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. “[a]bsent those limited cases where a breach of a consensual contract term is not claimed or alleged, the only justification for asserting a separate cause of action for breach of the implied covenant ...

Excerpt: ...rally prevents creditor from taking actions against property of the bankruptcy estate, the debtor and the debtor's property. The blanket injunction continues until a bankruptcy court order lifting the stay has been entered or the stay has been expired. (11 U.S.C. § 362; In re Mellor (9th Cir. 1984) 734 F.3d 1396, 1398.) Unless an exception to the stay applies, ‘[o]nce triggered by a debtor's bankruptcy petition, the automatic stay suspends any...

Excerpt: ... amendment is necessary and proper, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b); Dec. of Thomas, ¶¶ 1‐3.) Additionally, the proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action. (California Cas. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280‐281 (disapproved on other grounds by Kransco v. Am Empire Surplus Lines, Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390; Dec. of Thomas, Exh. 1; Settlement Agr...

Excerpt: ...nt's, Alan J. Bornt's, and Mary Bornt's demurrer to all of plaintiff Timothy, Stewart & Lekos Seed Company's causes of action for failure to plead sufficiently alter‐ego liability is OVERRULED. Plaintiff has pleaded sufficiently underlying facts to establish the required prongs of alter‐ego liability. (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 411; Complaint, ¶¶ 8‐ 12.) Defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's first cause of action for breach...

Excerpt: ..., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030.) The Court also declines to award defendant reimbursement for the claimed no show/cancellation fee, as defendant has failed to provide sufficient legal or factual support for the request. The monetary sanctions requested by plaintiff do not apply to discovery motions. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (e).) Finally, the Court declines to impose sanctions against defendant for unsuccessfully bringing a motion to compe...

Excerpt: ...antive responses to form interrogatories numbers 2.6, 6.3‐6.7, 8.1‐8.8, 9.1, 9.2, 10.1‐10.3, 11.1, 11.2 and 12.1 by June 15, 2020. Defendant The Regents of the University of California's request for sanctions is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030, 2030.300, subd. (d).) Plaintiff shall pay defendant $900 by June 15, 2020. Plaintiff Danielle Kassalty's motion for protective order is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.090.) The spec...

Excerpt: ...good faith and fair dealing, fourth cause of action for bad faith – failure to properly investigate, fifth cause of action for negligence, thirteenth cause of action for fraud/deceit: concealment, fifteenth cause of action for assault, sixteenth cause of action for battery, and seventeenth cause of action for false imprisonment is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts to support these cause...

Excerpt: ...s must show that as the director she specifically authorized, directed, or personally participated in the allegedly tortious conduct (United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haldinger‐Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 595), or that she specifically knew or reasonably should have known that some hazardous condition or activity under her control could injure plaintiff, and that she negligently failed to take or order appropriate action to avoid the harm. ...

Excerpt: ... Exhs. C‐H.) The stipulation, paragraph 5, fails to cite any applicable Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions included in that paragraph appear to track Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.230, the initial disclosure not, section 2034.280 which provides for supplemental expert disclosure. It is also silent on the scope of the testimony of any supplemental expert. The focus of the stipulation concerns the re‐opening of discovery. (Dec. o...

Excerpt: ... judicial notice of the CHP report. Defendants have not identified which section of the Evidence Code would support taking judicial notice of the CHP report, and further, although existence of a document may be judicially noticeable, the truth of statements contained in the document and its proper interpretation are not subject to judicial notice if those matters are reasonably disputable. (See Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007...

Excerpt: ... negligence and negligence per se against defendant Washington Unified School District as a public entity. (Govt. Code, §§ 815, 815.6; Educ. Code, § 44807; M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union Sch. Dist. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 508, 518; C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High Sch. Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 877; see also Forgnone v. Salvadore Union Elementary School Dist. (1940) 41 Cal.App.2d 423, 425‐426.) Defendant's demurrer is GRANTED WITH LEAV...

Excerpt: ...ore v. Dickey (2015) 239 Cal. App. 4th 959, 966.) Dignity Health has shown plaintiff Rodriguez cannot establish actual agency or ostensible agency existed between Dr. Kayali and Dignity Health or between Dr. Erlich and Dignity Health. (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, p. 2‐3; UMFs 1‐9, 15‐18; Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, p. 2‐4; Supplemental UMFs 60‐63; Civ. Code, §§ 2299, 2300; see als...

Excerpt: ...to have discovered it is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury. (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206‐1207; Bridgman v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1960) 53 Cal.2d 443, 447.) 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: ...auses of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (e).) 2 of 2 Plaintiff fails to state sufficient facts to state a cause of action for declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary duty, or negligence against defendant. (Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278, 293; Code Civ. Proc., § 1060; Lockheed Corp. v. Continental Ins. Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 187, 221.) If no hearing is requested, this tentativ...

Excerpt: ...��10, Exhs. C‐H.) The stipulation, paragraph 5, fails to cite any applicable Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions included in that paragraph appear to track Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.230, the initial disclosure not, section 2023.280 which provides for supplemental expert disclosure. It is also silent on the scope of the testimony of any supplemental expert. The focus of the stipulation concerns the re‐opening of discovery. (D...

Excerpt: ...paragraph 38 are SUSTAINED for lack of personal knowledge and hearsay. (Evid. Code, §§ 702, 1200.) FCA US LLC's objections to the Declaration of Steve Mikhov, paragraphs 8 and 27‐37 are OVERRULED. FCA US LLC's evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Sepehr Dghighianin, paragraphs 4‐6 are OVERRULED. FCA US LLC's evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Sepehr Dghighianin, paragraph 8 is SUSTAINED. (Evid. Code, §§ 400 et seq, 702, ...

Excerpt: ...orious and cause for its denial…”].) Plaintiff is also reminded that a proper proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a, subd. (1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c).) Defendant The Regents of the University of California's requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Plaintiff's motion to quash subpoena duces tecum as to U.C...

Excerpt: ... C. Alberson, Ph.D. is OVERRULED. Union Pacific and Brian Kline's evidentiary objections to Paxin's and defendant‐ crosscomplainant Granite Construction Company LLC's (“Granite”) evidence numbers 1 and 2 are SUSTAINED. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) Granite's objections 1‐9 to Union Pacific and Brian Kline's evidence are OVERRULED. Granite's motion for summary judgment or alternatively summary adjudication is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, su...

Excerpt: ...p. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 22, 27, fn. 2 [taking judicial notice of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services' report].) Therefore, respondent fails to cite adequate legal authority permitting judicial notice of such a document. Petitioner Richard Lauckhart's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) Respondent County of Yolo's demurrer to petitioner Richard Lauckhart's verified petition for writ of mandate is OVERR...

Excerpt: ... § 452; Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) Defendant Clark Pacific Corporation's demurrer or alternatively, motion to consolidate is OVERRULED as to the demurrer and GRANTED as to the motion to consolidate. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10, subd. (e), 1048.) The lead case will be CV CV 19‐644. A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are j...

Excerpt: ...irst cause of action for fraud is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) There is a triable issue of material fact as to whether defendant knew and failed to disclose or intentionally misrepresented that the anchor tenant would not be able to perform under the lease agreement prior to the close of escrow. (Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647; Lingsch v. Savage (1963) 213 Cal. App. 2d 729, 735‐738; UMF nos. 1, 4,‐7, 9‐10, 14�...

Excerpt: ...030.290, subd. (a).) However, defendant Sutter Health's objection that “a privilege log is unnecessary with regard to answering interrogatories seeking the identification of documents” is OVERRULED. (Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1191.) Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court held that the existence of a document containing privileged information is not privileged, and interrogatories may be used to discover...

Excerpt: ...ts of litigation are “merely incidental” to the cross‐complaint's causes of action. (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 394.) Further, cross‐defendant does not establish that the seventh and eighth causes of action arise from the constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(4); Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi‐Kerttula (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1042.) As this first...

Excerpt: ...r, her dog, and her home. (Cross‐complaint, ¶¶ 15, 21, 27, 28, 36, 37, 43, 44, 55.) The cross‐complaint does not allege that cross‐ complainant should be reimbursed or held harmless based on cross‐defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company's alleged actions. (Lab. Code, § 3864.) Further, the Court denies crossdefendants' request to issue an order severing the cross‐complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).) Cross‐ defendants h...

Excerpt: ...s the facts are not relevant to the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Defendant The Regents of the University of California's objection to plaintiff Amy Ahl Wright's undisputed material fact number one is SUSTAINED. The Court declines to rule on the remainder of the objections as the facts are not relevant to the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Plaintiff Amy Ahl Wright's motion for summary adjudication of the first cau...

Excerpt: ...alifornia Surety Investigations, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 695, 704.) Further, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable, given defendant's agreement to be responsible for payment of all arbitration costs and fees. (Ng decl., ¶ 2; Carboni 2 of 2 v. Arrospide (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 76, 83; Wherry v. Award, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1248.) The notice of motion does not provide notice...

Excerpt: ...er, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the Occupancy Agreement permits the member's immediate family members to occupy the unit, in lieu of the member. (UMF 3; Ms. Brewer's RJN, First Amended Complaint, Exhibit B, §§ 4.1, 5.1.) 2 of 2 Plaintiff Dos Pinos Housing Cooperative, Inc.'s request for judicial notice (“Dos Pinos's RJN”) is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) Defendant Charles Brewer's motion to set aside default is DE...

Excerpt: ...t of the discovery rule must specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery; and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.” (McKelvey v. Boeing North Am., Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 151, superseded by statute on another point.) In assessing the sufficiency of the allegations of delayed discovery, the court places the burden on the plaintiff to “show diligence”; “conclusory allega...

Excerpt: ...st, and defendant has not shown that such costs are reasonable and necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(4); Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 132.) 2. The motion to tax deposition costs is DENIED. This is an allowable cost, and plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the costs incurred were not reasonable and necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(3)...

Excerpt: ... There are issues of fact as to whether the alleged acts engaged in by defendants are personnel actions. (FAC, ¶¶ 21, 22, 31, 36, 38, & 41; Sheppard v. Freeman (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 339, 346.) Defendants' demurrer to the sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Defendants fail to demonstrate that the conduct alleged is not extreme and outrageous as a matter of ...