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...

Excerpt: ...n plaintiff's response to the FROG and RPD. Defendant failed to provide any factual arguments or legal authority within its memorandum of points and authorities in support of this aspect of the motion, as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b); Code Civ. Proc„ 52031.310, subd. he Court DENIES the motion as to the objections contained within plaintiff's supplemental responses to defendant's discovery requests, which were provided in resp...

Excerpt: ...earms dealer within California. (Opposition, pp. 2 & 8.) Further, this Court finds that, as owner of the "Group 2" firearms, Lorenzo can direct the disposition of these weapons to a licensed firearms dealer for subsequent sale. (See Henderson v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 622, 530-631; see also Penal Code, SS 30800, subds. & (c) ["possession of any assault weapon... in violation of this chapter is a public nuisance"], emphasis added, 30605, 30...

Excerpt: ...e Civ. Proc., S 425.16, subd. (c)(l).) On September 27, 2021, this Court granted cross- defendants' special moton to strike. (Code Civ. Proc„ S 425.16.) On November 3, 2021, the Court awarded cross-defendants, as the prevailing defendants, $30,555.00 in attorney's fees and $466.85 in costs. (Code Civ. Proc„ S 425.15, subd. (c)(l).) Cross-complainants appealed both orders. On July 28, 2023, this Court received the remittitur from the Third Dis...

Excerpt: ...s ("Zipcar") objections to evidence nos. 1-3 are OVERRULED. The Court declines to rule on Zipcar's remaining objections as the evidence objected to is not relevant to deciding this moton. Civ. Proc., S 437c, subd. (q).) The Court declines to rule on plaintiff's objection to Officer Diaz's video and transcript as the evidence objected to is not relevant to deciding this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., S 437c, subd. (q).) Plaintiff's motion for summary a...

Excerpt: ...strikes the following language from the complaint as to City, only: • „ improperly controlled/enforced speed limits in the above-described roadway, thereby created a hazard and increasing the potential for catastrophic injury and death. (Compl., 38e.) • had other defects or conditions that contributed to the SUBJECT INCIDENT. (Compl., 38g.) The notice of motion provides notice of this Court's tentative ruling system; however, the notice cit...

Excerpt: ...h 1403, 1420." Further, "the court's discretion to deny a motion under the statute is limited to circumstances where it is clear that the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was inexcusable, or where it is clear that the withdrawal or amendment would substantially prejudice the party who obtained the admission in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits. (ld. at pp. 1420—1421.) The Court finds that defendant's admissions were the ...

Excerpt: ...15, 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 SUSTAINS IN PART defendants Regents of the university of California ("Regents") Tracy Grissom ("Grissom") and Mary Elizabeth Floyd's ("Floyd") (collectively "defendants") objections to evidence offered by plaintiff, number 1, on the basis that the third sentence in paragraph 12 of William M. Bowen's...

Excerpt: ...eprived 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.) First, the Court finds that plaintiff did not unreasonably delay in seeking to amend the complaint. (Cf. Fisher v. Larsen (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 627, 649; Tsivyan decl., "1 4-7.) Second, the Court acknowledges that "t...

Excerpt: ...tion of the motion. The Court rules upon defendants' objection to the declaration of Jenaya Calderilla, D.O., as follows: • The Court declines to rule on defendants' objections numbers 5 through 7 12 — 15]. The Court finds that the evidence objected to is not relevant to the disposition of this moton. • The Court OVERRULES defendants' objections numbers 1 through 4, 8 and 9 1, 4— 11, 16, 17]. (Evid. Code, S 801.) • The Court SUSTAINS de...

Excerpt: ...; PLCM Group v. Drexler (20W) 22 cal.4th 1084, 1095; Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 155 cal.App.4th 1315, 1320 1322; City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 784; see Quantum Ctnking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934; citing Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 52; Lipow Decl., 3, 4, 8, Exhibit 1; Lipow Decl. ISO reply, "1 2 — 5.) However, the Court finds that plain...

Excerpt: ...rt, rule 3.1113(b); see Quantum Ctnking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934; citing Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 52 [where motion is supported by a deficient memorandum, the trial court is justified in denying the moton on grounds].) The Court also notes that this motion was not timely filed based upon the original hearing date of this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., S 1005, subd. (b) [all moving papers must ...

Excerpt: ...three-phased trial as described in petitioner's moving papers will be conducive to expedition, economy and the ends of justice, the convenience of the witnesses, and the overall efficiency of the handling of this litigation will be promoted. The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court's tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counsel for moving party, or the moving party if unrepresented by counsel, is ordered to...

Excerpt: ...on the same cause of action." (Code Civ. Proc., S 430.10, subd. (c).) However, there are different primary rights asserted in Ruff I (Case No. 0.1-2021-1246) and Ruff II (Case No. 01-2022-1762). (Quiroz v. seventh Ave. center (2006) 140 cal.App.4th 1256, 1278-1279; Bush v. superior court (1992) 10 cal.App.4th 1374, 1384.) While Ruff I asserts injuries to decedent's heirs, Ruff II pleads injuries to decedent. (See Quiroz, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at...

Excerpt: ... Cal.App.5th 1076, 1089 ["New evidence is generally not permitted with reply papers." l.) Defendant's special motion to strike is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc„ S 425.16.) "Litigation of an ant-SLAPP motion involves a two-step process. First, the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims arise from protected activity in which the defendant has engaged." (Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (202...

Excerpt: ...shifts to the responding party to justify the objection. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) The Court finds that plaintiff John Eldon Studarus has failed to meet his burden of justifying the objections to the discovery sought. (Ibid.) Plaintiff is directed to file further responses to defendant's requests for inspection (set one) nos. 1-15, with responsive documents, by October 13, 2023. Defendant's request for sanctions i...

Excerpt: ..., 349; Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081 ["plaintiff has the burden of proving that an amendment would cure the defect"]; Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627, 636 ["It]he burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintff"]; see Sarkisian Decl., 2—11, Exhibits A, G, H.) The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (Gov. Code...

Excerpt: ...d not consider the evidence to in making its ruling. Defendants Schilling Robotics, LLC ("Schilling") and FMC Technologies, Inc.'s ("FMC") objections to plaintiffs' evidence as to the declaration of Roy K. Suh nos. 17- 21 are SUSTAINED. The Court declines to rule on the other objections because the Court did not consider the evidence objected to in making its ruling. This Court does not consider the evidence submitted with plaintiffs Veronica Gar...

Excerpt: ...vacates its order denying the petition for writ of administrative mandamus and enters a new judgment granting the petition and (2) remands the matter back to the University for further proceedings consistent with the opinion by the Third District Court of Appeal. (See remittitur to trial court clerk, filed December 28, 2022; Hampton v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1952) 38 Cal.2d 552, 655—656 ["The trial court is empowered to a...

Excerpt: ... reasonable and necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., S 1033.5, subds. (c)(2) & (3); Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) The costs were incurred to collect, review and documents in response to petitioners' Public Records Request — so that petitioners could prepare the administrative record. (See Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1055 [a petition...

Excerpt: ...of action for products liability - design defect — is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., S 430.10, subd. (d); Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 952, 967.) The Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to allege the requisite elements of this claim; thus, the FACfails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Braun for products liability — design defect. (Code Civ. Proc., S 430.10, subd. (d)...

Excerpt: ...rt case number 34-2020- • on July 14, 2020, in case No. CV-2020-948, Nazia and Malik filed a complaint for financial elder abuse, civil suit for fraud, and forgery against defendants Shazia, Mohsan, Sadia Naseem ("Sadia"), and Ahsan (collectively "defendants"). This complaint was also filed on behalf of Zafar Iqbal. • On January 8, 2021, the Sacramento Superior Court transferred the 00280149 case to this Court. Upon receipt, this Court labele...

Excerpt: ...quests for production of documents, set one, is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., SS 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280.) "A separate statement is not required...[w]hen no response has been provided to the request for discovery..." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).) But, here, plaintiff did provide responses to the discovery and therefore, defendant must file a moton to compel further discovery with a separate statement. (See cal. Rules of court, rule 3.13...

Excerpt: ....4th 415, 422.) Defendant Covenant Care Courtyard's motion to strike is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., SS 435- 437.) Standing requirements will vary from statute to statute based upon the intent of the Legislature and the purpose for which the particular statute was enacted. (Blumhorst v. Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 993, 1000.) We turn to section 1430, subdivision (b). (Nevarrez v. San Marino Skilled Nursing & Wellness...

Excerpt: ...Ie Civ. Prcyc., S 2030.300; see Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2W5) 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].) The Court finds that this motion was not timely filed. (Code Civ. Pru., SS 1013, subd. (a) [service is complete at the time of the but any period of notice and any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any or on a date cert...

Excerpt: ...l., 4 — 11, Exhibits A— F.) Zero Net Energy Alliance, Inc. shall prov-de a verified response to plaintiffs discovery request, without objections, by July 1, 2023. 2 of 3 Plaintiff's request for sanctons is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $720M. (Code Civ. Proc., SS 2023.030, subd. (a), 2031.3[n, subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348; Pleau-Fuller Decl., '1 11.) The Court declines to award sanctions for time not yet incurred. If no hear...