Excerpt: ...that all categories within the subject subpoena are confidential; however, defendant has met its burden of showing that documents pertaining to plaintiff's wage and hour complaints made to prior employers are relevant to the present matter. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1; Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35, 37 – 40; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552; Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15...

Excerpt: ...City of Alhambra v. Superior Court (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 513, 520; O'Connor v. McDonald's Restaurants (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 25, 30; Felix v. Asai (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 926, 932–933.) Plaintiff's motion to compel defendant's further responses to request for admissions, set one, is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290.) The Court finds that defendant's responses to requests 18, 22 and 23 comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedur...

Excerpt: ...e overruled. A landlord is not liable for injuries resulting from third party conduct over which he has no control. (Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 512.) In determining whether a duty exists, the court analyzes multiple factors, including: social utility of the activity; risks of the activity; workability of a rule of care; persons involved and their relationship; financial considerations; moral considerations; prophylactic eff...

Excerpt: ... 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 also finds that defendant's separate statement fails to comply with the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345; Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.) The Court finds defendant failed to: (1) provide the text of plaintiff's original responses; (2) pr...

Excerpt: ...sanctions of dismissing the action or entering default judgment are justified. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d); 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 [discovery statutes evince an incremental approach, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with ultimate terminating sanction].) Defendant's request for evidentiary sanctions is GRANTED....

Excerpt: ...arch 9, 2020 is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff's request for issue sanctions is DENIED. A court may impose an issue sanction on a party who violates an order compelling discovery. However, the court's discretion must be exercised in a manner consistent with the basic purposes of such sanctions: to compel disclosure of discoverable information. Discovery sanctions cannot be imposed to punish the offending party 3 of 3 or to bestow an unwarranted “wi...

Excerpt: ...f action in defendant Thomas Rutaganira's (“Rutaganira”) cross‐complaint or (b) that Rutaganira's cross‐complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action against plaintiff. (Ibid.) The stipulation, by its terms, does not bar the present action. (Plaintiff's RJN, Exhibit 2.) Moreover, the cross‐complaint asserts different causes of action than the unlawful detainer case and seeks to resolve different issues than re...

Excerpt: ...l resolution” of the discovery disputes prior to filing the instant motions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); Townsend v. 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.) Plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2030.300, 2031.310.) Plaintiff was not successful in bringing ...

Excerpt: ...y of default when such a motion is brought within the time to file a responsive pleading or motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 412.20, subd. (a)(3), 585, 425.16; Kunysz v. Sandler (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1543 [noting that “the purpose of the anti‐SLAPP statute is to dismiss meritless lawsuits designed to chill the defendant's free speech rights at the earliest stage of the case.”]; see also Weitz v. Yankosky (1966) 63 Cal.2d 849, 854�...

Excerpt: ...13) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 230‐231.) Plaintiff has failed to allege facts showing how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made. (West v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 793.) The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as there is a reasonable possibility plaintiff could cure the defect by amendment. (Aubry v. Tri‐City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) Defendants' demurrer to plain...

Excerpt: ...nded Complaint. The Supreme Court has extended absolute immunity to certain persons who perform functions closely associated with the judicial process. (See Cleavinger v. Saxner (1985) 474 U.S. 193, 200.) Judges (and by analogy, court personnel performing tasks integral to a judicial function) will not be deprived of immunity for conduct that was “was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of…authority,” but will only be deprived ...

Excerpt: ...tes an order compelling discovery. However, the court's discretion must be exercised in a manner consistent with the basic purposes of such sanctions: to compel disclosure of discoverable information. Discovery sanctions cannot be imposed to punish the offending party or to bestow an unwarranted “windfall” on the adversary. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (b); Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793; Motown Record Corp. v. Superi...

Excerpt: ...ndation Health Plan v. Superior Court (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 696, 704; citing Thurman v. Turning Point of Central Cal. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) Even “nonintentional torts” may form the basis for punitive damages when the conduct constitutes a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902; citing Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 158.) “Nonintentional conduc...

Excerpt: ....) Plaintiff's motion to certify the subclass of non‐exempt employees of DD's Pizza who worked one or more work periods in excess of three and a half (3 ½) hours without receiving a paid ten (10) minute rest break during which the class member was relieved of all duties is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 382.) Plaintiff has established the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well‐defined community of interest, and ...

Excerpt: ...168 Cal.App.3d 399, 404‐405; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); see, e.g., Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843 [“In ruling on the motion, the court must consider all of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom…and must view such evidence and such inferences…in the light most favorable to the opposing party.”]; UMFs 5‐12, 14‐15.) Defendant's motion for summary adjudication as to the...

Excerpt: ... acceptance of such offers to defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 998, subd. (a); Drouin v. Fleetwood Enterprises (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 486, 491; State v. Agostini (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 909, 915; Koehler decl., ¶¶ 3‐4, Exhibit 2.) Plaintiffs have failed to establish that entry of judgment should be entered nunc pro tunc to February 3, 2020. However, the Court enters judgment nunc pro tunc to October 6, 2020, as the accepted 998 offers were filed...

Excerpt: ...ns, LLC's articles of organization filed by the California Secretary of State is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subds. (c), (h); 453.) Motions for summary judgment A moving defendant may obtain summary judgment by showing that an essential element of plaintiff's claim cannot be established. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).) A defendant does so by presenting evidence that plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain needed evidenc...

Excerpt: ...and as guardian ad litem for her natural child Logan Weishaar, and Micah Weishaar, or plaintiffs' counsel have violated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.30(c)(1).) Defendants have not established that plaintiffs violated this Court's order of November 12, 2020 which adopted the Tentative Ruling dated September 17, 2020 but inadvertently omitted an updated date by which plaintiffs were to pay sanctions to defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 177.5.) In a...

Excerpt: ...failed to state why the Court is permitted to take judicial notice of this document. (See, e.g., Evid. Code, § 452.) Defendant Alan Wei, an individual and dba Agri‐Analysis, LLC's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 451.) Defendant Alan Wei, an individual and dba Agri‐Analysis, LLC's special motion to strike plaintiff's entire complaint and all causes of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is DENIED. (Code...

Excerpt: ...lication[ ] for the same order” as defendant's previous motion, defendant failed to submit an accompanying affidavit stating what application was made before, when and to what judge, and what order or decisions were made. (Graham v. Hansen (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 965, 970; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (b).) Further, defendant failed to file and serve the instant motion within two years after entry of a default judgment against him. (Code Civ. ...

Excerpt: ...n, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020, subd. (a); see also Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.030.) Additionally, plaintiff has shown good cause justifying the production of the documents sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).) The Court notes that the notice of deposition incorrectly refere...

Excerpt: ...compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, and demand for inspection and production of documents and things, set one: Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to FROG 4.1 is GRANTED. Defendant has failed to set forth the efforts he made to obtain the information requested. (Devo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782‐783, superseded by statute on a different point.) Defendant has not explained why he would need to subpo...

Excerpt: ...) 15 Cal.4th 51, 64– 65.) However, plaintiff has failed to establish that the damages awarded were “certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation.” (Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (a); Watson Bowman Acme Corp. v. RGW Construction, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 279, 293‐294.) Specifically, the issues of liability and damages were significantly intertwined, requiring the Court to make a judicial determination on amount of damages awarded ...

Excerpt: ...damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d), emphasis added.) Moving defendants Good2Go Health, Daniel Genovese, and David Genovese in their separate statement have identified five issues for adjudication, but their supporting UMFs are not tailored with respect to their identified issues. Moving defendant American Redstone dba LUX in its separate statement identifies four ...

Excerpt: ...�Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) Given the conflicting declarations of Mr. Melcher and Mr. Braun, Granite has failed to make an evidentiary showing that the proposed settlement is within the “ballpark” of Granite's proportionate liability. (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1350‐1352 [“Mattco”]; Krenzin decl., ¶ 13, Exhibit I; Swadley decl., ¶ 8, Exhibit 6.) While Granite does not need...

Excerpt: ...tablished that the parties met and conferred in good faith. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).) Actual damages are claimed in the complaint. Plaintiff should know the extent of actual damages caused by defendant's alleged conduct in violation of the CC&Rs and the nuisance cause of action. Defendant's discovery request seeks relevant documents and defendant is entitled to discovery regarding evidence of those claimed actual damages. T...

Excerpt: ...judicial notice of “non‐exclusive right of way” language contained in exhibits 3‐5 because the legal effect of this language is not clear from the face of the documents. (Scott, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 755; StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9.) Therefore, to the extent that the Court declines to take judicial notice of the requested documents, defendants Kresta Daly and Don Hutchins' objections to plain...

Excerpt: ...shable from a case in which the government claim put defendant on notice of tort causes of action, but then the civil complaint included a wholly different legal theory, a contract‐based claim. (See Doe 1 v. City of Murrieta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 899, 921.) In this case, none of plaintiff's causes of action involve significant facts not mentioned in the government claim. (Ibid.) This case is also distinguishable from a case in which a governme...

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: ... 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: ...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: ...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: ...) 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: ...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: ...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: ...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: ...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: ...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: ...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: ...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: ....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: ...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: ...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: ...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: ...(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: ... 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: ...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: ... 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: ...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: ... 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: ... 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: ...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: ...��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: ... 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: ...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: ...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...