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...

Excerpt: ...ods 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].) The Court declines to rule on defendant's evidentiary objections to plainti
¯'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 judgment is GRANT...

Excerpt: ... LLC's urther response to demand or production numbers 1 & 2 is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) Deendant agreed to supplement its responses to requests 1 & 2, but plainti
¯ has not yet received them. (Smith decl., ¶ 13, Ex. 10, 12/11/23 e-mail exchange.) Deendant is DIRECTED to serve supplemental responses by February 7, 2024. • Plainti
¯'s motion to compel deendant's urther responses to demand or production numbers 3, 5, & 1...

Excerpt: ...ion. (Code Civ. Proc., 916, subd. (a); see Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189— 190, 196 199.) The case management conference set for this date is hereby VACATED. 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. Moton to stay: Defendant request for judicial notice as to Item K is GRANTED. (E...

Excerpt: ... document is genuine and accurate. [Citation]" ; Compl., 26.) Defendants' demurrer to plaintiffs' complaint as to defendant Cheryl walker, individually, is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc„ S 430.10, subd. (e); cal. Rules of court, rule 3.1320(g); see Buss v. J. O. Martin co. (1966) 241 cal. App. 2d 123, 133; Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) The Court finds that, based on the ShortForm Settlement Agreem...

Excerpt: ... see Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 417; Compl., 5, 9, 10, 13.) Defendants' motion asto the second cause of action for recovery under quantum meruit is DENIED. (Code Civ, Proc., S 438.) The Court finds that defendants have failed to provide any argument or legal authority that this cause of action is inconsistent with an oral [versus written] contract. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.113(a); see Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Assoc...

Excerpt: ... 187, 193 [the nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it].) All papers opposing a motion must be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least 9 court days before the hearing, unless the court or judge has prescribed a shorter time. (Code Civ. Proc., S 1005, subd. (bj.) Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on November 14, 2023. Nine court days before the hearing date (November...

Excerpt: ...paration; thus, the Court taxes the claimed costs in the amount of $180.00. (Code Civ. Proc., S 1033.5, subds. (a)(l), (c)(2); Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 618, 624.) • Item 4— deposition costs ($26,141.39): The Court finds defendant has claimed fees that are unsupported by the documentation provided, or relates to fees for expert witness that are expressly not allowed; thus, the Court taxes the claimed costs in the amount of $15,77...

Excerpt: ...ition. (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.1300(d); see Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202; see also Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 262 [stating that "a trial court has broad discretion to accept or reject late-filed papers."].) The Court rules upon Yolo County's demurrer and motion to strike plaintiffs' second amended complaint ("SAC") as follows: Yolo County's demurr...

Excerpt: ...; see Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 417; Compl., 5, 9, 10, 13.) Defendants' motion asto the second cause of action for recovery under quantum meruit is DENIED. (Code Civ, Proc., S 438.) The Court finds that defendants have failed to provide any argument or legal authority that this cause of action is inconsistent with an oral [versus written] contract. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.113(a); see Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Asso...

Excerpt: ... Cal.App.4th 187, 193 [the nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to itl.) All papers opposing a motion must be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least 9 court days before the hearing, unless the court or judge has prescribed a shorter time. (Code Civ. Proc., S 1005, subd. (b).) Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on November 14, 2023. Nine court days before the hearing da...