Excerpt: ...n to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, and motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents, set one, are DENIED AS MOOT. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, 2031.310.) On February 20, 2025, defendant served amended responses and verifications to these discovery requests. (Urbanic decls., ¶ 10, Exhibits 4 & 5.) Plaintiff's requests for sanctions are DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030,...

Excerpt: ...to when plaintiff Cody Reilly discovered “the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d); see Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42; see also Teitelbaum v. Borders (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 634, 638 - 639; Hertz Drivurself Stations, Inc. v. Ritter (1937) 91 F.2d 539, 543 [a cause of action pursuant to section 338, subdivision (d), does not accrue until th...

Excerpt: ...ly filed - the applica ble two - year statute of limitations began to run on the date plaintiff was injured, December 15, 2019. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1; see HydroMill Co., Inc. v. Hayward, Tilton & Rolapp Ins. Associates, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1153; Johnson v. Open Door Community Health Centers (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 153, 159; see also Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1109 - 1110; Compl., ¶¶ 1, 25, 35.) If no hearin...

Excerpt: ...iled to provide the Court with any of the exhibits identified in the moving papers. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b) [“The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”]; see Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934, citing Chavez v...

Excerpt: ...they failed to pay all required fees to continue the arbitration within the statutory deadline. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.98, subd. (a); Cvejic v. Skyview Capital, LLC (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1073, 1078.) However, the Court further finds that defendants acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make imposition of the sanctions sought by plaintiff unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1281.98, subd. (c), 1281.99, subd. (b); Snyder De...

Excerpt: ...an authorized pleading. ( See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subds. (b), (c).) The State's request for judicial notice as to item number 1 is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.) However, the Court declines to take judicial notice of the facts contained therein. (See Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564, citing 2 Jefferson's California Evidence Benchbook (2d ed. 1982), § 47.2, p. 1757.) The State's request for judicial notice...

Excerpt: ...er of pages. Motion for rehearing on cross -defendants' motion for summary judgment: Cross -defendants William Parcell and Theresa Parcell's request for judicial notice as to Exhibits A - C and request number 4 is DENIED because the items requested are not the proper subjects of judicial notice. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The Court construes cross - defendants' motion for rehearing on cross -defendants' motion for summary judgment as a motion p...

Excerpt: ... see Dumas v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 355; see generally Bowley Decl. ISO demurrer).) Despite this insufficiency, the Court will reach the merits of the demurrer. The Court rules on defendants' demurrer as follows: Defendants' demurrer to the first cause of action for battery is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The Court finds that plaintiff Sheryl Cornelius has stated facts sufficient t...

Excerpt: ...chneider & Hosmer. (Notice of Change of Firm Name and Handling Attorney [filed 4/29/24].) Cross -defendants are representing themselves. (Response in Opposition, p. 1.) All documents filed in civil law cases must be filed and served electronically on parties represented by counsel. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.250 et seq; YCR 7.1, 7.2.) Self -represented parties must be served conventionally, unless expre...

Excerpt: ...due on or before May 22, 2024. (Tapper Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3, Exhibit A.) This Court grants sanctions in the amount of $490.00. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2033.280, subd. (c); Tapper Decl., ¶ 4.) The Court declines to award sanctions for time not yet incurred. Defendant is directed to pay sanctions by February 28, 2025. The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court's tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2...

Excerpt: ...ch element of its breach of contract cause of action against defendants 1020 West Capitol Hotel, LLC, Guneet Bajwa, and Sushil Patel (collectively, “defendants”.) (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1); Evid. Code, § 500; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468 [if a defendant fails to meet their burden, their motion must be denied].) The elements necessa...

Excerpt: ...identified cos ts totaling $876.16. (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.1700(b).) The Court finds that plaintiff Marium Abid has failed to show that the claimed costs were reasonable and necessary. (See Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 624 [if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs]; see also Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678...

Excerpt: ...ever, due to plaintiff Matthew Rae's failure to respond to those attempts, CalSTRS was unable to do so. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040; Marshall Decl., ¶¶ 14 – 18, Exhibits G – J.) CalSTRS' motion to compel plaintiff's appearance at deposition is GRANTED. (Code. Civ. Proc., §§ 2019.020, 2025.450; Marshall Decl., ¶¶ 4 - 9, Exhibits A, B.) Parties are DIRECTED TO APPEAR and be prepared to select a date on or before January 17, 2025, to con...

Excerpt: ...; Proof of Personal Service, Exhibit A [filed 11/19/24].) All documents filed in civil law cases must be filed and served electronically. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.250 et seq; YCR 7.1, 7.2.) The period of notice is extended by two court days for all moving and supporting papers filed electronically and therefore plaintiffs' motion was untimely served on KAG. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005, subd. (b), 1010...

Excerpt: ...t to deciding this motion . (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) The Court declines to rule on Alpine's objections to evidence as the evidence objected to is not relevant to deciding this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) The Court notes that it can only grant summary adjudication “if it completely disposes of a cause of action, affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)...

Excerpt: ...nterest in the disclosure of the information that outweighs plaintiff's right to privacy. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010; Evid. Code, § 210; e.g., Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525; Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842 – 843 [“…courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.”]; Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. ...

Excerpt: ... Court also notes that Assignee Bounty Recovery failed to include a table of contents or a table of authorities, as required for a memorandum of points and authorities that exceeds 10 pages. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(f).) In the future, the Court may decline to consider contents of any page after 10 pages. (Ibid.) Assignee Bounty Recovery's motion to amend judgment without notice, to add defendants to judgment under alter ego doctrine is ...

Excerpt: ...orp. (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 permissive form must be relevant to a material issue].) Plaintiffs' motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, against defendants Covenant Care Courtyard, LLC and Covenant Care California, LLC, (collectively, “defendants”) are DENIED ...

Excerpt: ...roof of service of the moving paper must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing.”].) If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required. Demurrer: The Court notes that cross -defendants Maribel Garcia, Maricela Garcia, and Lucy Garcia Robles (“cross -defendants”) failed to proper...

Excerpt: ...ecifically the Mandato ry Arbitration Agreement (“Agreement”). (Harris v. TAP Worldwide, LLC (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 373, 380 [the party seeking arbitration bears the initial burden of demonstrating the existence of an arbitration agreement]; Christensen v. Dewer Developments (19 83) 33 Cal.3d 778, 782; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility Inc. (1994) Cal.App.4th 809, 816 -817; Hayes v. Children Leasing Co. v. NCR Corp....

Excerpt: ...rt, the August 19, 2024, order was issued against plaintiff as the result of her counsel's mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. (Baratti v. Baratti (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 917, 921; Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 234, superseded by statute on other g rounds as stated in Tackett v. City of Huntington Beach (1994) 22 Cal. App.4th 60, 64 [“Where an attorney states that he was unaware of his duty to appear or answer because ...

Excerpt: ...y) causes of action in plaintiff Gaven Zunie Magers' first amended complaint (“FAC”). (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (f)(1), (p)(2).) The Court finds that defendants have met their burden of showing that plaintiff's negligence cause of action against Moore has no merit. (Ibid.) The e lements of a cause of action for negligence are: (1) a legal duty to use due care; (2) breach of such duty; and (3) the breach was the proximate or legal c...

Excerpt: ...for judicial notice; however, while the Court may take judicial not ice of the legal effect of these public documents, the Court declines to take judicial notice of the truth of matters stated therein. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (h), 453; see Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 754 -755; see also Love v. Wolf (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 378, 403.) • The Court DENIES HOA's request for judicial notice submitted with its rep...

Excerpt: ...ee 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 permissive form must be relevant to a material issue].) Th e Court declines to rule on plaintiff Deann M. Riley's objections to evidence as the evidence objected to is not germane to the disposition of Universal's motion for summar...

Excerpt: ..., ru le 3.1320, subd. (a); Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193 [the trial court may construe a pleading labeled as one type of motion to be a different type of motion].) Defendant's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evi d. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.) The Court notes that defendant has failed to file a declaration identifying the parties' attempt(s) to meet and before the filing of this demurrer, as r...