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

Excerpt: ... constitute a defense to the complaint. (Ibid; Compl., ¶¶ CC‐1, CC‐2.) Based upon defendant Martha Q. Baeza's admission in her answer, the Court also finds that the defect cannot be cured by amendment, and defendant has not met her burden of showing otherwise. (Pang v. Beverly Hosp., Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 986, 989–990; Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627, 636; see Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318; Answer, ¶ 3(b).) The no...

Excerpt: ...ss he can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise.” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.) “Conduct amounting to a breach of contract becomes tortious only when it also violates an independent duty arising from principles of tort law.” (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 515.) A “[p]laintiff cannot recover economic damages resulting from negli...

Excerpt: ... Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 262 [a trial court has broad discretion to accept or reject late‐filed papers].) Respondent the Regents of the University of California's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subds. (c), (d), 453.) Petitioner's motion for writ of mandate directed to respondent is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085.) The Court finds that respondent has met its burden of proof under the catch...

Excerpt: ... that a licensed contractor was required to perform the “site work” identified in the contract at issue between plaintiff and defendant Valley Star Partners, LLC. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 7000, 7026, 7028, 7031; FAC, Ex. A, and exhibit C attached thereto.) The Court also finds that based upon the allegations of the FAC, and the exhibits attached thereto, plaintiff sufficiently alleges that at least some of the “site work” for which plaint...

Excerpt: ...claimed damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 912, 980; Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 754, 767; citing Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611–1612 [the scope of discovery extends to any information that reasonably might lead to other evidence that would be admissible at trial].) As to plaintiff's motion quashing the use of documents in this litigation with Bates numbering WM 001419 through WM 001...

Excerpt: ...pearance in the instant action based upon the filing of their motion to disqualify. (See In re Strong's Estate (1942) 54 Cal.App.2d 604, 611 [process is waived by a general appearance, in person or by attorney, entered in the action, or by some act equivalent thereto, such as the filing of a pleading in the case or by otherwise recognizing the authority of the court to proceed in the action].) However, the Court also finds that there are no proof...

Excerpt: ...187 Cal.App.4th 1017, 2 of 5 1030, fn. 7; American Indian Model Schools v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 258, 275–276.) Cross‐ defendant's request for judicial notice in support of reply is DENIED. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537 [“The general rule of motion practice, which applies here, is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.”]; see also People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268...

Excerpt: ...served and filed separately from the other papers…in opposition to the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b).) The Court declines to rule on defendant's evidentiary objections to plaintiff's evidence as the evidence objected to is not germane to the disposition of defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Defendant's motion for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action for wrongful term...

Excerpt: ...w when the educational institution makes a specific promise to provide an educational service, such as a failure to offer any classes or a failure to deliver a promised number of hours of instruction.” (Kashmiri v. Regents of University of California (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 809, 826.) However, unless there was a formal agreement between defendant and its students or an express statement by defendant that it intends to be bound, any alleged agree...

Excerpt: ...leyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980 [“Because the law favors disposing of cases on their merits, any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default.”]; Colderbank Decl., ¶¶ 2‐14.) Further, defendant has shown “diligence in making the motion after discovery of the default.” (Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1410; Colderbank Decl., ¶¶ 16‐40.) Defendant's...

Excerpt: ...ey Boosalis, Mara Getz, and Eric Parise's first amended complaint seeks relief for conversion of the same property identified in plaintiff First Centaur's conversion cause of action for Case No. CV‐2018‐ 1444. (Compare defendant's RJN, no. 3, ¶¶ 59‐61 and defendant's RJN, no. 5, ¶¶ 61‐66, 68.) Moreover, defendant's cross‐complaints filed in each case seek nearly identical factual and legal determinations, only against different part...

Excerpt: ...'s discovery requests and pay monetary sanctions warrants terminating sanctions. (Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Ottovich (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 706, 712 – 713.) Defendant's answer is stricken and a judgment by default against defendant Stcyr shall be entered. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(1), (4).) Plaintiffs' request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED, in the amount of $740.00 against defendant Stcyr. By continuing to di...

Excerpt: ... § 1281.2, 1284.) The case of Felisilda v. FCA US LLC ((2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486) is binding on this Court. The Court thus finds that plaintiff is estopped from repudiating defendant's enforcement of the express arbitration provision found in the Retail Installment Sales Contract (“Contract”) between plaintiffs and Hoblit Chrysler Jeep Dodge. (Felisilda, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th 486, 495 – 499; Universal Decl., Ex. A.) The Court finds that ba...

Excerpt: ...he Court finds that plaintiff Hossam Buzgheia failed to record his mechanic's lien pertaining to the work of improvement he performed on defendants' property within the requisite statutory time frame; thus, has waived his right to bring the instant action. (Civ. Code, §§ 8180, subd. (a), 8412, subds. (a)(1), (a)(3); Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. BBIC Investors (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 228, 237, 240; See Stanislaus Lumber Co. v. Pike (1942)...

Excerpt: ...roducts, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586–1587.) The Court finds that defendant did not act with diligence in obtaining a hearing to compel plaintiff's compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b)(2).) Specifically, plaintiff produced the subject spreadsheet, CTGA‐0002507, on August 17, 2020 and the corresponding privilege log on October 19, 2020. (Campbell decl., ¶¶ 8, 10.) Defendant waited until July 9, 2021 to request an un...

Excerpt: ...re due on or before June 11, 2021. (Schoech Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs' request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED, in the amount of $900.00 against defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.020, 2033.280, subd. (c); Schoech Decl., ¶ 9.) Defendant shall pay these sanctions by October 3, 2021. Motion for terminating sanctions or an order to show cause re contempt against defendant: Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Co...

Excerpt: ...Proc., § 1211; Koehler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169 [stating that “indirect contempt requires there be an initiating affidavit, and without one any contempt order is void.”].) Contempt requires “(1) a valid order, (2) knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply with the order, and (4) willful failure to comply with the order.” (In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793, 798; see also Lyon v. Superior Court of Los Ange...

Excerpt: ...tions to plaintiff's evidence as the evidence objected to is not germane to the disposition of defendant's motion for summary adjudication. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Defendant's motion for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action (breach of contract) is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Defendant has shown that there was not “an actual withholding of benefits due” and therefore, there can be no breach...

Excerpt: ...ndoza Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Defendant/cross‐complainant's motion to compel defendant Anytime Fitness, LLC's further responses to special interrogatories, set two, is DENIED AS MOOT. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) Defendant Anytime served second supplemental responses to special interrogatories, set two, numbers 34 – 40, on July 15, 2021. (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) The Court declines to rule upon the adequacy of defendant Franchise's or def...

Excerpt: ...iffs have sufficiently pled allegations in the first amended complaint to support a prayer for punitive damages. (Civ. Code, § 3294; Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3rd 890, 895 – 896, 899; Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1299; Compl., second cause of action‐general negligence, ¶ GN‐1.) The notice of motion provides notice of this Court's tentative ruling system; however, the notice cites to previous Local ...

Excerpt: ...that NGEC has failed to show good cause for responsive documents after 2016. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(1), 2017.020, subd. (a); FACC, ¶ 30.) Therefore, the Court limits the timeframe of subject requests from 2014 to 2016. In all other respects, the Court finds that NGEC is entitled to the sought documents. Based on the allegations in the FACC, the subject discovery is relevant to defendants' determination of damages. (Code Civ. ...

Excerpt: ...ministrative remedies regarding this cause of action by not filing an administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) that included a charge of sexual harassment, or conduct corresponding thereto, within one year of the date the alleged unlawful practice occurred. (Former Gov. Code, § 12960, subd. (d), amended by stats. 2019, c. 709 (A.B.9), § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2020; Wills v. Superior Court (2011) 195 Cal....

Excerpt: ...or judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438.) The Court finds that plaintiff Manzar Qayyum's allegation in the complaint that a partnership existed is a question of fact that cannot be determined upon motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Billups v. Tiernan (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 372, 379; see Spier v. Lang (1935) 4 Cal.2d 711, 716; Compl., ¶ 10.) Defendants' motion to bifurcate is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 598, 1048, su...

Excerpt: ... second amended complaint (“SAC”) is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B).) Defendant has failed to establish that plaintiffs' SAC does not state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action against defendant. (Ibid.) The first cause of action is not mooted by Casey Boosalis' removal as a director of Capay Valley Floriculture because plaintiffs also seek a determination as to whether defendant was properly removed as director....

Excerpt: ...5.) On balance, the Court concludes that non‐party Rebecca Kozlowski's (“Kozlowski”) privacy interest in her financial documents is outweighed by the sought documents' direct relevance and unavailability through less intrusive means. (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 754‐755; Barrett decl., ¶¶ 11, Exhibit 9.) However, the Court finds the requests overbroad as to time. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010...

Excerpt: ...ITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473, 576.) Defendant 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).) Further, defendant has failed to file a supporting declaration stating: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) t...

Excerpt: ...1) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (2) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).) Further, plaintiff has failed to show justification for the long, unexcused delay in seeking amendment, and the proposed amendments would require the parties to conduct additional discovery. (Rainer v. Buena Community Memorial Hosp. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 240, 258 [�...

Excerpt: ...rt to determine “the validity of any election or appointment of any director” and therefore, plaintiffs cannot obtain relief under Corporations Code section 709. (Morrical v. Rogers (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 438, 452, 457; FAC, ¶¶ 32‐44.) While the FAC also cites to other sections of Corporations Code, these statutes do not provide a basis for plaintiffs to obtain the requested relief. (Corp. Code, §§ 12360, 12362; FAC, ¶¶ 42‐44.) As t...

Excerpt: ...8 to the Brazier declaration is OVERRULED. 3 of 4 • Objections nos. 1‐6 to the Teixeira declaration are OVERRULED. • Objections nos. 7‐13 to the Teixeira declaration are SUSTAINED. The Court does not reach Andersen's other evidentiary objections as the evidence objected to is not germane to the disposition of the instant motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Andersen's motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc.,...

Excerpt: ...Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.020, 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280.) The Court finds that plaintiff did not misuse the discovery process, acted with substantial justification, and other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.020, 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c); DeSantis Decl., ¶¶ 2 – 4.) The Court also finds that plaintiff served a response in substantial compliance with Code of Civ...