Excerpt: ...c., § 128, subd. (a)(5); People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1145–1146.) Defendant does not have standing to bring the present motion to disqualify. (Great Lakes Construction, Inc. v. Burman (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1356– 1357; cf. Blue Water Sunset, LLC v. Markowitz (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 477, 485‐486 & 481.) While a non‐client party may bring a motion to disqualify “whe...

Excerpt: .... (b); Sibley decl., ¶ 14.) Further, plaintiff has provided sufficient justification for propounding 39 special interrogatories on defendant Sibley. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.040, subd. (b), 2030.030; see Usher v. White (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 883, 896–897.) Defendants' motion for protective order regarding requests for admissions and form interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.080.) With the exception of requests for ad...

Excerpt: ...AGUILAR 219 through AGUILAR 238. This Court SUSTAINS defendant David Drake's (“Drake”) objections to videos AGUILAR 219 through 223 and AGUILAR 225 as late evidence not authorized by this Court's order of February 4, 2022. This Court considers only videos AGUILAR 224 and AGUILAR 226 which had previously been submitted as attachments to the declarations of Yasmine Salmeron and Raymond Ruano, both filed with the Court January 21, 2022, in suppo...

Excerpt: ...r duplicative; (2) obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive; or, (3) 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 litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.030, subd. (a)(1), (2); Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 672; Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 7...

Excerpt: ...rst, plaintiff's motion does not include a copy of the proposed amended pleading. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)(1).) Second, plaintiff has not stated what allegations are proposed to be added and/or deleted and where, by paragraph and line number. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)(2)‐(3).) Third, plaintiff has failed to file a supporting declaration, stating: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and prop...

Excerpt: ...ing the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b)(1), 2031.310, subd. (b)(2), 2033.290, subd. (b)(1); Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435; Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431–433; Holland decl., ¶¶ 5‐14, Exhibits 6‐10.) 2 of 2 Bridge Partners' request for sanctions is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).) Bridge...

Excerpt: ...v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 134, 201‐202 [“The term ‘damages' refers to the monetary sum assessed by a court against a wrongdoer for the commission of a legal wrong of a private nature.”], emphasis in original; Watson Bowman Acme Corp. v. RGW Construction, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 279, 293 [“prejudgment interest is an element of damages, not a cost of litigation.”].) The notice of motion does not provid...

Excerpt: ...set forth evidence that defendant Mateo Galvan continues in possession of real property after a three‐day written notice to quit was served upon him, where the property was sold in accordance with Section 2924 of the Civil Code, under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust executed by defendant, and the title under the sale was duly perfected. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161a, subd. (b), (b)(3); RJN Nos. 1‐5; RFAs deemed admitted 1‐9; Reyes...

Excerpt: ... Cal.App.2d 749, 759; Miller Decl., ¶ 6, Exhibit A; Boutin Decl., ¶ 6.) The Court declines to rule upon the remaining objection to Eric Miller's declaration as the Court did not rely upon the remaining challenged paragraphs of said declaration in determining the instant motion. The Court declines to rule on plaintiffs Robert Shelton and Adrian Shelton's [evidentiary] objection to Underwood declaration as the Court did not rely upon the challeng...

Excerpt: ...burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b); see also Poeschl v. Superior Court In and For Ventura County (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 383, 385‐387 [“the existence of such advantages alone will ordinarily not constitute good cause for changing the normal timing of discovery or justify a conclusion that such timing will result in ‘annoyance, embarrassment or oppression.”]; see generally Radcliffe decl.) Further, defendant has ...

Excerpt: ...ision giving rise to the instant action is a disputed fact that the Court may not decide upon demurrer. (See Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 114 – 115.) The parties are DIRECTED TO APPEAR for the case management conference. Motion to Strike: Defendant's request for judicial notice is DENIED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (c), 453; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, subd. (l); Post v. Prati (1979) 90 Cal.A...

Excerpt: ...h 238, 268, fn. 6; see Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817 825.) Petitioner Jennifer Marston, and the minor, Ryan Marston are DIRECTED TO APPEAR. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.952.) If the parties fail to appear at the hearing and the Court has not excused their personal appearance, the petition will be denied without prejudice. No request for a hearing is required. 2 of 3 Motion for attorney's fees and common fund reduct...

Excerpt: ...constitutes “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(7), emphasis added; Renno decl., ¶¶ 2‐5.) Second, while plaintiff Krista Mitchell filed two petitions for writ of mandate in December, 2021, both petitions have since been dismissed. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(7).) Finally, defendant has not shown that he has...

Excerpt: ... notice request number six is DENIED as irrelevant. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268, fn. 6.) With regard to request number one, this Court can only take judicial notice of facts to the extent that they are not or cannot be disputed. (Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 375–376.) Plaintiff asks that this Court take judicial notice of the fact that defendant “Phillips 66 is a for‐hire motor carrier (USDOT n...

Excerpt: ...he motion.”].) The Court does not reach plaintiff's objections to the declaration of Michael J. Perrotti, Ph.D. Defendants' motion for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action (enticement of minors) is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “[T]he unlawful taking or withholding of a minor child from the custody of the parent or guardian entitled to such custody constitutes an actionable tort.” (Surina v. Lucey (1985) ...

Excerpt: ...id. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The Court takes judicial notice of nos. 2‐7. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) However, the Court declines to take judicial notice of no. 1 as the proffered document is irrelevant to the Court's determination of the instant motion. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268, fn. 6.) 2 of 3 Defendant and Flower of Life's objection to the declaration of Pete Stathis as to no. 10 is OVERRULED. The Court declines to rule ...

Excerpt: ...)(1), provides two alternative prongs to prove malice – by showing intentional conduct or by showing despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. Defendant proffers UMF 10 to address the intentional prong of the statute; however, the only admissible evidence provided to the Court in support of said UMF is defendant's self‐serving declaration. (UMF 10; Gotelli...

Excerpt: ...on 1946.2, subdivision (b)(2)(D). In this case, section 1946.2 requires plaintiffs to notify the tenant of the tenant's right to relocation assistance or rent waiver. (Civ. Code, § 1946.2, subd. (d)(2).) If the owner elects to waive the rent for the final month of the tenancy, the notice shall state the amount of rent waived and that no rent is due for the final month of the tenancy. (Id., emphasis added.) Plaintiffs' 60‐day notice of terminat...

Excerpt: ...ubd. (a).) Specifically, defendant, as the owner of the documents at issue, directed respondent California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to produce only redacted copies of said documents to petitioner Electronic Frontier Foundation; thus, in defendant's absence, the Court cannot accord complete relief between petitioner and respondent. (Id.; See Sierra Club Inc. v. Coastal Com. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 495, 502; Am. Writ, ¶¶ 21...

Excerpt: ... 2020; and (3) plaintiff Virgrow Organics, Inc.'s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) filed with this Court October 27, 2020. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.) The Court also takes judicial notice of RJN number (6) County of Yolo Ordinance No. 1502 filed August 6, 2018, representing Title 5, Chapter 20 of the Yolo County Code regarding marijuana cultivation in effect February 5, 2019. (RJN, Ex. C; Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (b), 453.) Def...

Excerpt: ...nds that the operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) is an “action on a contract”, and that the 1995 Declaration contains an attorney's fees provision that is broad enough to encompass all the causes of action found within the SAC. (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a); Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 230, 239 – 241; Lerner v. Ward (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th, 155, 159; Cruz v. Ayromloo (2007) 155 Cal.App...

Excerpt: ...e, the attorney's fees requested by petitioner for time actually spent prosecuting the instant action are reasonable. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096; Knox Decl., ¶¶ 5 – 10, 12 – 20.) However, the Court declines to award attorney's fees for time not yet incurred ($4,500.00). (Knox Decl., ¶¶ 7, 11D, 12, Exhibit 2, p. 1.) Based on the foregoing, the Court awards defendant $37,530.00 in attorneys' fees. On the Court...

Excerpt: ...ination of the instant motion. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268, fn. 6.) Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc.'s objections to evidence as to Mr. Petrovich's declaration paragraphs 12 and 13 and UMF nos. 79‐80 are SUSTAINED. Defendant's objections to evidence as to Mr. Petrovich's declaration paragraphs 20 through 24 and UMF nos. 28, 54, 63, 68‐78, 83, 89‐90, and 99 are OVERRULED. The Court declines to rule on defendant's other 2 of 3...

Excerpt: ... or the truth of any matter when requested to do so under this chapter, and if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the genuineness of that document or the truth of that matter, the party requesting the admission may move the court for an order requiring the party to whom the request was directed to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney's fees.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff has provided s...

Excerpt: ... (Palagin v. Paniagua Construction, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 124, 140; Burkes v. Robertson (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 334, 343.) “[T]he employer must post the undertaking before it files its notice of appeal, and no later than 10 days after service of the Commissioner's order.” (Id. at p. 131, emphasis added; see also Burkes v. Robertson (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 334, 347.) The clerk properly rejected appellant's notice of appeal because appellant ...

Excerpt: ...between plaintiff Swinerton Builders and all defendants in the instant action [and related actions] are subject to the mediation provisions found within the respective subcontracts. (Compl., Exhibits 1 ‐ 16, subds. (d), (e), (f).) The Court further finds that pursuant to said provisions, neither arbitration nor litigation may proceed until such mediation occurs. (See Civ. Code, §§ 1636, 1638; Templeton v. Superior Court, (2006) 144 Cal.App.4t...

Excerpt: ...esult of his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Baratti v. Baratti (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 917, 921; Douglas decl.) Finally, defendant has failed to establish that he filed the motion diligently after discovering the entry of default and default judgment. (Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1410.) The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court's tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11...

Excerpt: ... Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438; Clement v. Allegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294; Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.) The court finds that plaintiff's counsel's sole meet and confer letter to defendant Cesar Pedroia's counsel on December 16, 2021, was insufficient to meet the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 prior to the filing of the instant motion. (See Townsend, supra, at p. ...

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 ...