Excerpt: ...Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967; Jones v. Awad (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1200, 1207 [the elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligencel.) The Court finds that plaintiffs' complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for premises liability. (Donnell v. California Western School of Law (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 715, 725 — 726; See Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Serv. (2000) 81 ...

Excerpt: ...eged facts to state this cause of action. (Davis v. (1943) 61 Cal.App.2d 788, 794; citing Burkett v. Griffith (1891) 90 Cal. 532, 541; Am. Compl„ 11 — 13, 49— 53; Exhibits. E— G.) The motion as to plaintiff's sixth cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relationship is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., S 438, subd. see Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 cal.3d 311, 318.) The court finds that defendant Scott T...

Excerpt: ...or committing fraud and forgery in court waiver fee by lying under penalty or [sic.] perjury under oath in court as follows: Defendant/respondent's motion to deem plaintiffs/pebtoners to be vexatious litigants is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., S 391.) The Court finds that defendant/respondent has failed to establish the requisite elements for this Court to deem plaintiff/petitoners to be vexatious litigants. (Ibid.; Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 cal.App...

Excerpt: ...N PART. (9 U.S.C. S 1, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., S 1281.2.) The Court finds that plaintiff Martinez Narez's individual PAGA claims are subject to the executed arbitration agreement(s) within plaintiff's employment file. (Stenson Decl., '1 8, Exhibits 1 — 6; Op., p. 2, II. 3—4.) However, the Court finds that the California Supreme Court, in the case of Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (Case No. S274671), is presently reviewing the issue of wh...

Excerpt: ...is Court exercises its discretion to allow the costs of travel to the hearing on December 15, 2022. (Code Civ. Proc., S 1033.5, subd. (c)(4).) A prevailing party is entitled "as a matter of right" to recover costs in any acton or proceeding unless a statute expressly provides otherwise. (Segal v. ASICS America Corp. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 651, 658, quotation marks in original; Code Civ. Proc., S 1032, subd. (b).) Section 1033.5 sets forth the types of...

Excerpt: ...App.4th 742, 749, citing McAllister v. County of Monterey (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 253, 280.) The Court rules upon defendant Larry French's demurrer to [and motion to strike] plaintiff's complaint as follows: Defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint based upon the statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2(a) and lack of standing as a result thereof is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., S 430.10, subd. The Court finds tha...

Excerpt: ...on Inc. dba KDC Construction and defendant McCandless & Associates Inc. have each filed a joinder in defendants Valley Star Partners, LLC, Mitch Engstrom, and Mark Engstrom's motion to require vexatious litigant plaintiff to furnish security. Plaintiff Howard Herships acknowledges in his opposition that Cirks and McCandless have joined in the moton. (See plaintiff's opposition, p. 2.) Plaintiff does not dispute that Cirks and McCandless can join ...

Excerpt: ...nfer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer." l.) Respondent's demurrer to the second, sixth and seventh causes of action on the ground that Randall Wilson is an indispensable party is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., SS 389, 430.10, subd. (d).) The Court finds that while petitioner Bradford G. Crandall. Sr.'s petition does contain allegations that Mr. Wilson may be a joint tortfeasor, respondent has failed to...

Excerpt: ...ber 19 is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., S 2031.310.) The Court finds that the terms "employment practices", "policies", "procedures" and "discussed" are vague ambiguous and overbroad and does not specifically describe each individual item sought or by reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. (Code Civ. Proc., S 2031.030, subd. (c)(2); Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 222; see Dauis Decl. [filed ...

Excerpt: ...." l.) Petitioners challenge respondents County of Yolo and Yolo County Board of Supervisors' (collectively, "the County") January 11, 2022 certification of the Environment Impact Report ("EIR") for the Teichert Shiner Mining and Reclamation Project ("Project") and approval of the Project. Petitioners assert that the EIR relied upon for approval of the Project fails to satisfy the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act ("CECA"). (Pu...

Excerpt: ...vil Procedure secton 664.6. (Settlement agreement, '1 17.) Plaintiff and defendants have both invited this Court to enter final judgment in this matter. (Plaintiff's motion, p.6; defendants' opposition, p. 5.) The paramount rule governing the interpretation of contracts is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as it is ascertainable and lawful [citation]. (City of Chino v. Jackson (...

Excerpt: ...rer is SUSTAINED IN PART, as noted. (Code Civ. Proc., S 430.10.) 1. Defendants' joint demurrer on the ground that plaintiff lacks capacity to sue is OVERRULED AS MOOT. (Code Civ. Proc„ S 430.10, subd. (b), 377.32; Ruff decl., 1-6, Ex. A.) 2. Defendants' joint demurrer on the ground that Ruff II is a duplicative action is SUSTAINED IN PART WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, as noted. (Code CIV. Proc., S 430.10, subd. Defendants' joint demurrer to plaintiff...

Excerpt: ...lic Health ("CDPH") is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., S 1987.1.) The Court finds that CDPH has no authority to disclose any of the requested documents to plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs must request the documents in the possession of CDPH through the Freedom of Information Act. (45 C.F.R. S 2.1, et seq., 45 C.F.R. S 5.1, et seq.; see In re Complex Blood Bank Litigation (1991) 812 F.Supp. 160, 151 [documents may only be produced in private litigation ...

Excerpt: ...' demurrer on the ground that cross-complainant Sherwood Harbor Marina, LLC lacks capacity to sue is OVERRULED. A special demurrer to cross-complaint may be filed on the ground that the person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue. (Code Civ. Proc„ S 430.10, subd. (b).) But capacity to sue is not a required element of any of the cross-complainant's causes of action and thus, the purported lack of capacity to sue is not ...

Excerpt: ...g defendant's enforcement of the express arbitration provision found in the Retail Installment Sale Contract – Simple Finance Charge (“Sales Contract”) between plaintiff and Hanlees Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Kia (“Hanlees”). (Felisilda, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th 486, 495 – 499; Azemoon Decl., Exhibit A.) The Court finds that based upon the plain language of the Sales Contract, plaintiff expressly agreed to arbitrate her claims against a non...

Excerpt: ...agement conference. City of West Sacramento, Jesse Moore and County of Yolo's demurrer: The Court rules upon defendants City of West Sacramento, Jesse Moore and County of Yolo's (“defendants”) demurrer to plaintiff Gaven Zunie Mager's complaint as follows: The Court SUSTAINS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND defendants' demurrer to the third cause of action for negligence against defendant Moore. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Plaintiff fails to ...

Excerpt: ...r production nos. 16-18 (manuals and agreements) is GRANTED IN PART. RFP no. 16 is too broad in scope and is construed as all warranty claims policy and procedure manuals that would apply to the subject vehicle from 2020 to the present. General Motors LLC is directed to produce a privilege log identifying documents withheld on the grounds privilege or work product. Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to requests for production nos. 19-2...

Excerpt: ...complaint, and all references to said Exhibits and/or “Attachments” in said complaint. Anti‐SLAPP Special Motion to Strike: The Court SUSTAINS defendants' evidentiary objections to the documents attached as Exhibit A to plaintiff's opposition. (Evid. Code, §§ 403, subd. (a)(3), 1200, 1400; See Sambrano v. City of San Diego (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 225, 237.) The Court notes that even if the Court considered plaintiff's late‐filed request f...

Excerpt: ... (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c) [proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the hearing]; Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [all moving papers must be filed and served 16 court days prior to the hearing, with an additional 5 court days required for mail service].) The Court also finds that petitioner has failed to provide a sworn declaration supporting the attorney's fees allegedly incurred. (...

Excerpt: ...16‐18 (manuals and agreements) is GRANTED IN PART. RFP no. 16 is too broad in scope and is construed as all warranty claims policy and procedure manuals that would apply to the subject vehicle from 2016 to the present. Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to requests for production nos. 19‐29 (policies and procedures, training materials) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to request for production no. 30 (techn...

Excerpt: ... proof because the consideration exception to the recreational use immunity statue applies. (Civ. Code, § 846, subd. (d)(2); Gordon v. Havasu Palms, Inc. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 244, 255; citing Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1100; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 563, 586 [payment of any consideration for permission to enter property for a recreational purpose abrogates the immunity under section 846 ...

Excerpt: ...nd plaintiff Mark Wang, specifically the Engagement of Legal Services agreement (“Agreement”). (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236 [Pinnacle]; Compl., ¶ 7, Exhibit 1, ¶ 16.) The Court further finds that plaintiff Kevin Wang, in his capacity as a managing member/owner of Wang Brothers, is a party to the Agreement. (Compl., ¶¶ 1 – 3, 7, Exhibit 1, ¶ 16, Exhibit 4, pp. 5 – 6, ...

Excerpt: ...e first, fourth and sixth causes of action within the complaint is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (f)(1), (p)(2).) The Court finds that defendant has established that plaintiff was not subject to an adverse employment action within the one‐year limitations period before she filed her DFEH complaint on November 2, 2017. (Former Gov. Code, § 12960, subd. (d), amended by stats. 2019, c. 709 (A.B.9), § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2020; Gov. Code,...