Excerpt: ...).) The Court finds that plaintiff Ashley Stewart states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (Del E. Web b Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604; see Voris v. Lampert (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1141, 1150 – 1151; Zaslow v. Kroenert (1946) 29 Cal.2d 541, 550; FAC, ¶¶ 99 - 103.) Defendants' demurrer to the sixth cause of action for fraudulent concealment is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e).) T...

Excerpt: ...va Decl., ¶ 15.) Defendant City of Davis' request for judicial notice 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 eith...

Excerpt: ...(a); Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 752 [“the court may take judicial notice on its own volition”].) The Court shall afford each party reasonable opportunity before the cause is submitted for 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).) Defendant Ro...

Excerpt: ...rgument or legal au thority found in pages exceeding the maximum permitted number of pages. Defendant Regents of the University of California's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.) However, while the Court may take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, it can only take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of fact and conclusions...

Excerpt: ...he required elements for fraudulent concealment are (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact; (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would have acted differently if the concealed or suppressed fact was known; and (5) the plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealme...

Excerpt: ...s' replies. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d); 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.”].) On the Court's own motion, plaintiffs' motions to compel defendant's further responses to request for admissions, set one, and request for production of documents, set one are CONTINUED to March 26, 2025, at 9:00 a...

Excerpt: ...6 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1113; Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 57; Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 132.) • Item 12 – court reporter fees: The Court finds that the $250.00 fee for a court reporter on March 17, 2016, was not in this case but in case CV -2012 - 1928. (See Estate of Bauer (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 161, 163 [“Costs are allowable only in the action in which the costs are incurred.”].) Thus, the Court tax...

Excerpt: ...ubd. (a); Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 752 [“the court may take judicial notice on its own volition.”) The Court shall afford each party reasonable opportunity before the cause is submitted for 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).) Plaintif...

Excerpt: ...ght discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2017.010, 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224, disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98; Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223 -224; Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) The Court fur...

Excerpt: ...fraud is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Aubry v. Tri -City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) The Court finds that plaintiffs Jae Phoenix and Oakley Phoenix fail to state facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (See Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 347, 362; Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638, 645 [the elements of fraud are: (a) a misrepresentation; (b...

Excerpt: ...section 685.070, subdivision (c), which is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.070, subd. (c); see Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193.) The Court finds that plaintiff Parmac 116, LLC, is not entitled to attorney's fees ($26,600.00) because attorney's fees were not awarded as part of the underlying judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.040; see King County Superior Court Judgment attached to the App. For Entr...

Excerpt: ...rah Noel Hazelwood (collectively, “plaintiffs”) motion for reconsideration as follows: Motion to set aside default judgment Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice of Exhibits 1 -6 are DENIED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) The 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 ...

Excerpt: ... v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 806, 820, fn. 5.) The Court shall afford each party reasonable opportunity before the cause is submitted for 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).) Plaintiff Espinoza Bail Bonds' renewed motion for leave to file second amended...

Excerpt: ...lar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843, 850; Genisman v. Carley (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 45, 49; Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 915, 925 –926, 946; Lake Almanor Assocs. L.P. v. Huffman -Broadway Group, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1205; Ky. Fried Chicken of Cal. v. Super. Ct. (1997) Cal.4th 814, 819; Gray v. America West Airlines, Inc. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 76, 81; San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Davey Tree Surgery Co....

Excerpt: ...453.) However, “[w]hil e the courts take judicial notice of public records, they do not take notice of the truth of matters stated therein.” (People v. Long (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 586, 591 citing Love v. Wolf (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 378, 403; see Horne v. District Council 16 Internat. Union of Painters & Allied Trades (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 524, 535, citing Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375.) The Court r...

Excerpt: ...cial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, 453.) While the Court takes judicial notice of the existence of these documents, the Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in the documents. (Bach v. McNelis (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 852, 864 –865; Exhibits 1 - 2.) Plaintiff's evidentiary objections in opposition are OVERRULED. (See Carrasco v. Craft (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 796, 808; Bach, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at pp. 864 –8...

Excerpt: ...nt 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; 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].) Defendants' demurrer to first amended complaint is SUSTAINED WI...

Excerpt: ...ntiff's FAC alleges that Lamothe's role extended beyond a “typical real estate transaction” and instead was he was acting as a de facto general contractor. (FAC, p. 4.) Based on these allegations, defendants have not shown that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (Ibid.) Defendants' demurrer to the second (breach of fiduciary duty) and third (violation of Business and Professions Code section 7026) caus...

Excerpt: ...its of the motion. The Court rules upon defendant's unopposed demurrer to plaintiff Miguel Mejia's first amended complaint as follows: • Defendant's demurrer to the first cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627, 636 [“[t]he burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff�...

Excerpt: ...section 2025.450 is not the proper basis for this motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b); see Quantum Cooking 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 [where a motion is supported by a deficient memorandum, the trial court is justified in denying the motion on procedural grounds]; Lara Decl., ¶¶ 4 – 7, Exhibits 1, 2.) Furthermore, even if this mot...

Excerpt: ... (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 175, 181 – 182.) The Court finds that the doctrine of res judicata precludes plaintiff Elena Portnoy's complaint. (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896 – 897; Colombo v. Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 407, 416; RJN, Exhibits 3 – 6.) Further, plaintiff has failed to satisfy her burden. (Lawrence v. Barona Valley Ranch Resort & Casino (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1369, internal cita...

Excerpt: ...oduction of documents is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Defendant SHALL provide verified responses to plaintiff's demand for production of documents, set one, without objections, by December 6, 2024. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The Court declines to award sanctions for estimated time that was not actually incurred. (See Wallin Decl., ¶ 8.) The notice of motion does not provide...

Excerpt: ...iv. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (c).) “The primary right theory is a theory of code pleading that has long been followed in California.” (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 904.) “Under the primary rights theory, a cause of action is defined as: (1) a primary right possessed by the plaintiff, (2) a corresponding duty imposed upon the defendant, and (3) a wrong done by the defendant which is a breach of such primary right and d...

Excerpt: ...he Notice adequately identifies the grounds for summary judgment, the Notice fails to identify the specific issues or subissues for summary adjudication, as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a); Homestead Sav. v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 499.) • Plaintiff's objection to defendants' separate statement for failing to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d)(1)(B) is SUSTAINED. (See Whitehead v. Habig (2008)...

Excerpt: ...ent may be the proper su bject of judicial notice if there is no factual dispute that the document is genuine and accurate. [Citation]”; SAC, ¶ 26.) The Court notes that plaintiffs MK Construction and Maurice Kalisky (collectively, “plaintiffs”) did not submit a proposed order with their written objections to evidence as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(c). The Court will overlook this technical defect and rule on plainti...