Excerpt: ... 422 [a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form must be relevant to a material issue].) The Court rules on defendants' demurrer to plaintiff Gloria Garcia's verified first amended complaint (“FAC”), as follow s: • Defendants' demurrer on the ground of lack of capacity to sue is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (b).) The Court finds that the allegations defendants rely on in t...

Excerpt: ...ral form interrogatories and employment form interrogatories as follows: CalSTRS' motion as to interrogatory numbers 2.12, 6.6, 10.1, 12.6, 204.2, 207.2, 208.2 and 210.6 is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to justi fy his failure to provide full and complete responses to these interrogatories and/or to justify his objections to said interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030...

Excerpt: ...2024 , at 3:00 p.m. at 2150 Appian Way, Suite 100, Pinole, California. (Bangle decl., ¶ 8.) Defendant will reimburse plaintiff for all reasonable expenses and costs associated with traveling to and from the medical examination. (Id., ¶ 9.) The nature, scope , conditions, and manner of examination are as follows: • The examining physician will ask, and plaintiff shall answer, questions relating to the nature and extent of the injuries alleged ...

Excerpt: ...person most qualified (“PMQ”) regarding staffing and acuity levels is GRANTED as to RPD nos. 1 – 12, 20 – 23, and 25 – 31. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450, 2025.480.) The Court finds plaintiffs have shown good cause justifying the production of the documents des cribed in the amended notice of deposition for the time period of one year before Gerald Gibbon's (“Mr. Gibbons”) residence at Courtyard to six months after Mr. Gibbons' r...

Excerpt: ... to consti tute a cause of action for fraud given that plaintiff alleges that there are “various misrepresentations of fact or false promises” made by defendant but only identifies one alleged misrepresentation made by Alex Duncan. (Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig (2007 ) 154 Cal.App.4th 347, 362 [“Fraud is required to be pleaded with specificity.”]; Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638; see Committee on Children's Television...

Excerpt: ...s on defen dants' demurrer, as follows: Defendants' demurrer to the first cause of action for battery is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e).) The Court finds that plaintiff Terry Chaffin has stated facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 669; Ashcraft v. King (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 604, 613 [in an action for civil battery the element of intent is satisfied if the evidence show...

Excerpt: ...ssue of the Court's failure to rule on it has been waived. Nonetheless, the Court finds that at the time plaintiff filed said request for judicial notice, plaintiff did not provide the adverse party with sufficient notice of the request and DENIES the req uest on this ground. (Evid. Code, § 453, subd. (a); see Smith v. Hatch (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 39, 49.) The Court declines to rule on plaintiff's evidentiary objections as they were not timely ...

Excerpt: ...) 220 Cal.App.4th 534, 541; Westra v. Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Co., Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 759, 763 [“[g]enerally speaking, one must be a party to an arbitration agreement to be bound by it or invoke it”].) Defendant is not a party to either the retail installment sale contract (“Sales Contract”) or the arbitration provision contained within the Sales Contract that was entered into between plaintiff Jared Y...

Excerpt: ...hr ough Its Personal Representative, Maria Cecilia Ruff's (collectively, “plaintiffs”) unopposed joint application for an order to seal references to the settlement amount with plaintiff is GRANTED. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.550, 2.551.) The Court finds that the facts establish: (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a s...

Excerpt: ...k Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825 [“Any matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue.”]; Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) The Court notes that there is no Exhibit 6 in plaintiff's request for judicial notice. Defendant/cross -complainant Thomas R utaganira's (“defendant”) request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings...

Excerpt: ...egarding failure to exh aust administrative remedies may be considered on demurrer].) Defendants' request for judicial notice [filed on February 26, 2024]. as to document 5 (Exhibit E), is DENIED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The proffered document is not relevant to the Court's d etermination of the demurrer or motion to strike. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268, fn. 6; see Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 81...

Excerpt: ...§ 452, 453.) The proffered documents are not relevant to the Court's determination of this motion. (Rowland, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 268, fn. 6; see Malek, supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 825; Lockyer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 422.) The Court rules upon cross -defendants Ronal d and Linda Chuang's (“the Chuangs”) request for judicial notice as follows: • The Court GRANTS the Chaungs' request as to document 1. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. ...

Excerpt: ......

Excerpt: ... of Jonathan Ruff, Richard Throp, and Ellisha Thorp agree that a protective order is proper to safeguard defendants' confidential information. (Plaintiffs' conditional nonopposition, p. 2.) However, plaintiffs request revisions to defendants' propos ed protective order. (See Kronenberg decl., ¶ 7, Exhibit 5.) The Court orders the following revisions to defendants' proposed protective order: 1. Addition of a sharing provision that mimics the sha...

Excerpt: ...., § 877.6.) The Court finds that Thermacor Process, Inc. (“Thermacor”) has failed to demonstrate that this settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to the Tech - Bilt factors “as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.” (Tech -Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward -Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499- 500 [“Tech-Bilt”]; C ode Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d) [“The party asserting the lack of go...

Excerpt: ...Lauryn Stockert, is an indispensable party to this case, and why DWS is precluded from joining her in this case as a defendant. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [stating that a demurrer's limited purpose is “to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint”].) Defendant further fails to establish that this cause of action, as presently plead, fails as a matter of law. (Ibid.; Complaint ¶¶ 8, 13 -16.) Defendant's d...

Excerpt: ...es t for judicial notice as to all other documents is DENIED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The proffered documents are not relevant to the Court's determination of this motion. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268, fn. 6; see Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825; People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 [a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or ...

Excerpt: ... decision by the Court to present to the Court information relevant to (1) the propriety of taking judicial notice of the matter and (2) the tenor of the matter to be noticed. (Evid. Code, § 455, subd. (a).) Cross -defendant's first amended request for j udicial notice is GRANTED IN PART. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The Court takes judicial notice of Exhibits 1 -5 and 7 -8. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) However, the Court declines to take j...

Excerpt: ...the docume nts. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The proffered documents are not relevant to the Court's determination of this motion. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268, fn. 6 [Rowland]; see Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825 [M alek]; People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 [Lockyer] [a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form m...

Excerpt: ...(a), 395, subd. (a), 396b, subd. (a).) “Where an action is brought against both corporate and individual defendants, venue is proper for the action as a whole if it is correct as to any defendant.” (Buran Equip. Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Ca l.App.3d 1662, 1666 [emphasis added].) “[T]ort claims against a corporation [may] . . . be tried in any county in which the ‘liability arises' as well as in the county where the corporation's pr...

Excerpt: ... (1992 ) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) The Court finds that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action because plaintiff failed to file the requisite affidavit. (Civ. Code, § 1780, subd. (d).) The demurrer to the sixth cause of action (ne gligence) is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); see Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court finds that as the basis for the sixth c...

Excerpt: ...that plaintiffs have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for all plaintiffs. (Lab. Code, § 226, subds. (f), (h); Johnson v. Clark (1936) 7 Cal.2d 529, 536 [a complaint is invulnerable to general demurrer if on any theory it states a cause of action]; see Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.) • Defendant's demurrer to the second cause of action for a violation of Labor Code s...

Excerpt: ...; see Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825 [Malek]; People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 [Lockyer] [a precondition to the taking o judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive orm must be relevant to a material issue].) Deendant South Tahoe Public Utility District's request or judicial notice is DENIED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The pro
¯ered documents are not relev...

Excerpt: ...., Zinn decl. [Þled January 12, 2024], ¶¶ 30-48; Tsivyan decl. [Þled January 26, 2024], ¶¶ 2-4.) If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is e
¯ective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required. Defendant's motions to compel further responses to discovery Plainti
¯'s request for judicial notice in opposition to defendant's motions to compel further discovery respo...

Excerpt: ...to compel defendant City of Davis (“defendant”) to further respond to request for production of documents, set one, is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) As to RFP nos. 1-8, and 14, the Court Þnds that defendant must produce the requested documents in its possession, custody, or control from 2009 to present. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.210, subd. (a)(1), 2031.220.) As to RFP nos. 4-8, and 12, defendant has not provided a ve...