Excerpt: ...production has met his burden of showing good cause simply by a fact‐specific showing of relevance. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Once good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify his objection. (Ibid.) Defendant in this case seeks three months of communications directly relevant to plaintiff's attempts to seek and obtain employment before his suspension, plaintiff's intent to resign his...

Excerpt: ...ce's continued and renewed motion for attorney's fees. (Save Open Spaces Santa Monica Mountains v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 235, 250 – 256 [Save Open Spaces]; Barth Decl., ¶¶ 6 – 9, Exhibits 6 – 10.) However, the Court also finds a compelling interest in petitioner's right of associational privacy, and protection of the attorney‐client and work‐product privileges. (Cal. Const., art. I, §§1 – 3; Save Open Spaces, supra,...

Excerpt: ...d. (c)(1)(A).) Plaintiff's complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and defendant Christopher A. Hubert's answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Ibid.; H. Russell Taylor's Fire Prevention Service, Inc. v. Coca Cola Bottling Corp. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 711, 726‐727; CACI No. 372; Higgins v. Wortell (1861) 18 Cal. 330, 333; Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Most (1940) 39 Cal.App...

Excerpt: ...thin their separate statement of disputed material facts in opposition to Shopcore's motion for summary judgment; or, (2) defendant Jason Marsh's (“Marsh”) evidentiary objections made within his response to Shopcore's separate statement of undisputed material facts in support of 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.�...

Excerpt: ...rby as the evidence objected to is not germane to the disposition of the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Pruco's objections to the declarations of Dr. Timothy J. Wiegand and Dr. Mario San Bartolome are OVERRULED. Pruco's motion for summary adjudication as to issues nos. 1 and 2 is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “The rule in insurance cases is that a material misrepresentation or concealment in an insura...

Excerpt: ...before this Court. (See Decision After Hearing on Appeal, issued March 8, 2022.) Respondent's motion to strike appellant's memorandum of costs in its entirety is denied. Appellant concedes a clerical error in the tabulation of costs and stipulates that the correct tabulation is that service of process costs were $455.56 and the total costs claimed are thus $590.56. Thus, the Court grants respondent's request to tax the amount claimed in error: $5...

Excerpt: ...writing, of the intent to take defendants' defaults, including failing to provide a date by which a responsive pleading needed to be filed. (See Lasalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127, 135, 141 [all parties shall cooperate in bringing the action to trial or other disposition, quiet speed and unreasonable deadlines do not qualify as “cooperation” and cannot be accepted by the courts]; Barreno Decl., ¶¶ 3 – 4.) The notice of motion does...

Excerpt: ...., LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App 4th 972, 1004 [Heritage].) The Court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market in setting a reasonable hourly rate. (Id., at p. 1009; Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.) In the Court's experience, the local rates for this type of work ranges from $350.00 to $450.00 per hour. In making its calculation, a court should also consider the experience, skill, and reputation of the att...

Excerpt: ...laintiff The People of the State of California has provided competent evidence that defendant, Flowmaster, and Driven have all shared a corporate officer – Thomas W. Tomlinson. (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110–111 [citations omitted]; Centerpoint E. v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1120 [citations omitted]; Ray v. Alad Corp. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 22, 28 – 29 [a 2 of 3 corporation acquiring ...

Excerpt: ...may move for an order compelling production and notice of that motion to compel shall be given to all parties and the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subds. (a), (c), emphasis added.) A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a 2 of 5 nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the non...

Excerpt: ...tion to defendant's MJOP, (6) defendant's reply (in support of its MJOP), (7) this Court's ruling granting defendant's MJOP with leave to amend, (8) plaintiff's third amended complaint, (9) plaintiff's notice of motion and motion for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, (10) declaration of attorney Adam Ambrozy in support of defendant's motion for sanctions pursuant to section 128.7, (11) defendant's request for judicial n...

Excerpt: ... (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 154, 157 – 158 [a second offer to compromise extinguishes the first offer for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 998]; March 17, 2022, Judgment; Houvener Decl., Exhibit C.] The Court thus awards defendant post‐offer expert costs in the amount of $39,027.00. (Houvener Decl., Exhibit D.) The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court's tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counse...

Excerpt: ...nd filed separately from the other papers…in opposition to the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b); See Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 531–532.) The Court notes that it can only grant summary adjudication “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, subd. (f)(1); see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th...

Excerpt: ...enforceable only if the lessor strictly complies with the specifically described notice conditions. (Kwok v. Bergren (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 596, 600.) Courts have held that because of insufficient notice served upon a tenant, an unlawful detainer complaint failed to state a cause of action. (Baugh v. Consumers Associates, Limited (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 672, 675.) Plaintiff's unlawful detainer complaint relies upon a 3‐day notice to pay rent or qu...

Excerpt: ...rmane to the disposition of the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Defendant's objections to evidence contained within plaintiff's opposition no. 5 is OVERRULED. The Court declines to rule on all other evidentiary objections as the evidence 3 of 4 objected to is not germane to the disposition of the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Defendant's motion for summary adjudication as to issue no. 1 (general neg...

Excerpt: ...r the fourth cause of action for negligence, are measured exclusively under Civil Code section 3343. (See Civ. Code, § 3333; Santa Barbara Pistachio Ranch v. Chowchilla Water Dist. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 439, 446–447; cf. Fragale v. Faulkner (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 229, 236‐237 [finding the application of Civil Code section 3343 to limit the plaintiffs' damages, when the plaintiffs brought an action based on a broker's misrepresentation]; SAC,...

Excerpt: ...s DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 685.010, 685.020, subd. (a).) “Only final judgments bear postjudgment interest.” (Hyundai Motor America v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 418, 424.) “A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 577; see also Doudell v. Shoo (1911) 159 Cal. 448, 453 [“A judgment is final when it terminates the litigation between the parties on...

Excerpt: ...ng party]; see Friends of Spring Street v. Nevada City (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1104 [in determining whether a party is a prevailing party the trial court determines whether the party succeeded at a practical level by realizing its litigation objectives and whether the action yielded the primary relief sought in the case]; DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1140, 1157 [the rule is that a partial recovery, a...

Excerpt: ...ages and (2nd) that prejudice to either party is speculative. Thus, bifurcation would not serve judicial economy and efficiency or the interests of justice. SDH's unopposed request to bifurcate the issue of punitive damages, precluding presentation of evidence on SDH's profits or financial condition until after plaintiff has obtained a finding of malice, oppression, or fraud on the part of SDH, is GRANTED. (Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (d).) If no h...

Excerpt: ...Civ. Proc., § 430.10; See Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against BNT. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The Court finds that there are no allegations in the FAC that BNT has any adverse claim against the title of the subject property, and no amendment can cure this deficiency. (See Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4t...

Excerpt: ...f any party desires to obtain discovery by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a), emphasis added.) The Court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a).) SDH has shown good cause for the proposed mental examination. Plaintiff has placed his mental state in controversy by the alle...

Excerpt: ... permitted number of pages. 4 of 4 Defendants Zero Net Energy Alliance, Inc. (“ZNEA”), Richard Schorske, and Sharon Tobar's request for judicial notice is DENIED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) Defendants failed to make their request for judicial notice in a separate document as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(l).) Defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's second amended complaint (“SAC”) as to the third cause of action (alter ego lia...

Excerpt: ...ornia (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1119.) SDH's objection to the declaration of plaintiff, at 8:1‐3 (Din decl., ¶ 30), is OVERRULED. (Evid. Code, § 803.) SHD's objections to the declaration of attorney M. Bradley Wishek, at 5:23‐27 (Wishek decl., ¶ 8), are SUSTAINED. (Evid. Code, §§ 403, 702, 803.) SHD's objections to the declaration of attorney M. Bradley Wishek, at 5:27‐29 (Wishek decl., ¶ 8), are SUSTAINED. (Evid. Code, §§ 403, 70...

Excerpt: ...ed time entries attached as Exhibit A to the declaration of Tessa McGuire. (Evid. Code, §§ 402, 403; McGuire Decl., Exhibit A; see declarations of Boutin, McNairy, McGlone, Miller, Cowan and Jackson.) However, the Court finds that only those time entries that identify fees “incurred in the request for” the Stipulated Judgment (“Judgment”) are relevant. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350; Judgment, ¶ 4.) Regarding those time entries that do not...

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...