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