Excerpt: ...ns have been withdrawn by Plaintiffs; therefore, no ruling is made. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents (Set 3) Against Defendant Esther Garcia: In the Joint Statement, Defendant Esther Garcia agreed to serve an amended Privilege Log. No such amended Privilege Log has been provided to the Court so the 2 Court asks the parties how it can evaluate a log that is not before the Court? The Court, however, agrees with Plaintif...

Excerpt: ...blower retaliation statute); (4) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; (5) IIED; and constructive discharge in violation of public policy. Page 2 of 13 On March 2, 2021, Defendant filed this motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff filed a timely opposition. Defendant filed a timely reply. II. DISCUSSION Statement of Law California Law Code of Civil Procedure sections 1280 et seq. provide a procedure for the summary determination ...

Excerpt: ... to the Court but had not yet been processed. Page | 4 Plaintiff requested a Mandarin interpreter, but there was none available at the time. The Court continued the hearing to May 12th so that Defendants could file an amended declaration of Dr. Sung. The Court ordered Defendants to submit an amended declaration within 10 days and then Plaintiff would have 20 days to file an opposition and Defendants would have 10 days to file a reply. On March 10...

Excerpt: ...ds each of these causes of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) & (f).) Second Cause of Action – Civil Code § 1942.4 Defendant argues Plaintiffs still fail to name any public officer or enforcement agency that allegedly inspected the property or provided notice to Defendant. Additionally, Plaintiffs fail to allege the date the notice was provided to determine the 35 day...

Excerpt: ...eeding, the District and CSEA failed to mutually agree on the selection of a hearing officer under the relevant provisions of Article 17 of the collective bargaining agreement, and that CSEA objected to the selection of H.O. Macklin. [Writ Page 2 of 13 Petition, ¶ 9.] As a result, when Williams was advised that the District had unilaterally selected H.O. Macklin, Williams objected to the selection and asked to participate in the selection of a n...

Excerpt: ... withdrawn by Plaintiffs; therefore, no ruling is made. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents (Set 3) Against Defendant Esther Garcia: In the Joint Statement, Defendant Esther Garcia agreed to serve an amended Privilege Log. No such amended Privilege Log has been provided to the Court so the 2 Court asks the parties how it can evaluate a log that is not before the Court? The Court, however, agrees with Plaintiffs that the ...

Excerpt: ...lower retaliation statute); (4) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; (5) IIED; and constructive discharge in violation of public policy. Page 2 of 13 On March 2, 2021, Defendant filed this motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff filed a timely opposition. Defendant filed a timely reply. II. DISCUSSION Statement of Law California Law Code of Civil Procedure sections 1280 et seq. provide a procedure for the summary determination o...

Excerpt: ...ations as alleged in paragraph 22 of the Complaint. (Hudson Decl. Exh. A.) Therefore, defendant argues that Plaintiff and her counsel lack a good faith basis to bring the Complaint. Plaintiff, however, submits her own declaration, stating that during her hiring process she was required to undergo a criminal background check as a condition of employment. She states that Patrick Warden of Defendant's Human Resources Department presented her with a ...

Excerpt: ...ed 2 Motion: The motion is denied, without prejudice. Where a motion for prejudgment possession is opposed, the moving party is required to establish each of the following: (1) the plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain, (2) the plaintiff has deposited pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 1255.010) an amount that satisfies the requirements of that article, (3) there is an overriding need for the plaintiff to posses...

Excerpt: ...n. On 10/21/20, the court issued a ruling to deny certification based on the court's misunderstanding that plaintiff had failed to submit evidence of numerosity and a trial plan. On 11/2/20, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. On 12/22/20, the court granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, based on plaintiff's uncontested submission that there were 344 putative class members and because the court had actually deferred the require...

Excerpt: ...rer to the third, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action with leave to amend. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on January 12, 2021. Plaintiffs allege they purchased a new 2015 KIA Sportage vehicle on July 27, 2015. The vehicle was purportedly covered by KIA's 5‐year or 60,000‐mile express bumper to bumper warranty and its 10‐year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty. Subsequently, KIA provided a 10‐year/120,000 ...

Excerpt: ...nting and Drywall dba T&R Construction Group (“T&R”), filed its original Complaint against defendants, Fore Construction, LLC 2 (“Fore”) and CPR/FPC Foothill Owner, LLC (“CPR/FPC”). On March 10, 2020, as a matter of right, T&R filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging the eight causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Quantum Meruit; (3) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Enforce...

Excerpt: ...ployees or how their shares will be calculated. But whatever the individual shares would be, the amount to be paid to the named representative—apparently $23,500.00—exceeds the entire amount designated as the PAGA component of the settlement by $20,536.66. Of the $30,000.00 gross settlement amount, the approximate distributions are as follows: 7.22%: Attorney fee 4.56%: “PAGA and administration” costs (unexplained what this means) 7.40%: ...

Excerpt: ...s different from the class members and the PAGA period. The net class settlement is $156,616.12, which will be divided among the 168 class members based on the number of work‐weeks each worked. With 4,951.68 total work‐weeks, each class member will receive $31.02 per work‐week, with the average receipt of $914.38. The PAGA allocation is $10,000, with 75% ($7.500) paid to the LWDA and 25% ($2,500) paid to the aggrieved employees. Counsel sho...

Excerpt: ...l number of work‐weeks in the class period (though May 6, 2021). If this information is not presently available, it can be provided at the time of final approval. At final approval, costs must be specifically itemized. Counsel should be aware that the Court does not award costs for LEXIS or Westlaw research, which the Court considers to be an item of overhead. The Court also limits photocopying charges to $0.06 per page. While the attorney fee ...

Excerpt: ...unsteady gait. Using the license plate number provided to him, Officer Stark traced Ortolani to her residence. After arriving at her residence, Officer Stark observed the vehicle described by the other parties to the collision and noted it was warm to the touch. He made contact with Ortolani where he noted she had bloodshot and watery eyes, an odor of alcohol, and slurred speech. Ortalani admitted driving and being involved in the accident. While...

Excerpt: ...o be futile. In moving to strike paragraph 32, pertaining to subsequent penalties, on the ground that there has been no determination of an initial violation, defendant relies on Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2 (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1209. In Amaral), the Court found, "Until the employer has been notified that it is violating a Labor Code provision (whether or not the commissioner or court chooses to impose penalties), the employer cannot be p...

Excerpt: ...as to Defendant Glass only. 1 Because some parties share a common last name, first names are used for clarity. No disrespect is intended. 2 The motion was set to be heard April 13, 2021, but at that hearing was continued by the Court to May 5, 2021. DISCUSSION Discretionary Provision under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), “the court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a p...

Excerpt: ...ve any publicly viewable content on the internet regarding any party to this litigation or the merits of this litigation. Finally, Defendants move for an order prohibiting Plaintiff's counsel or its surrogates from sending any communications to any state agency regarding any parties to this litigation or relating to the merits of this litigation. Plaintiff opposes arguing that there is insufficient legal authority, that there has not been a viola...

Excerpt: ...matters: 1. The number of aggrieved employees. 2. The number of work‐weeks in the PAGA period. Although the motion seeks $25,000 as an estimate of costs, Ms. Carney's declaration documents only $18,433.09 in costs. Included in this amount are the following: 1. $4,309.92 for “Outside Contractor.” Counsel must explain this entry. 2. Counsel also seeks $734.81 for LexisNexis charges. The court considers LexisNexis to be an item of overhead, no...

Excerpt: ...ned before his death. She asserts that the tax basis for the property was established decades ago, either before her father's death or upon his death in 1997. Upon his death, however, the property was transferred not to petitioner alone, but to petitioner and her sisters. Apparently based on equitable concerns,2 the sisters eventually transferred their interests in the property to petitioner by grant deed, recorded in 2015. Based on that transfer...

Excerpt: ...e Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(2).) Costco filed its MSJ on February 11, 2021. The proof service attached to the MSJ indicates Costco served its MSJ by mail on February 10th. Seventy‐five days beyond that date is Monday, April 26th. Adding the five court days for mail service results in a date of Saturday, May 1st. The hearing should have thus been noticed on or after Monday, May 3rd. Instead, it was noticed for March 23rd. However, this issu...

Excerpt: ...onstruction, Inc. and Katherine Hall a. Discussion i. 1st Cause of Action (“COA”) – Fraud 2nd COA – Negligent Misrepresentation The Koala Defendants assert both the allegations of fraud and negligent misrepresentation are not specifically pled as required. Cross‐Complainants argue the causes of action are well‐pled. For Hani and Frances Sayegh as to the second cause of action, they argue the cross‐ complaint does not allege they mad...

Excerpt: ... at ¶¶4‐5, 9, and Exhs. 1‐2, 8; Whitman Decl. [RFA] at ¶¶4‐5, Exhs. 1‐2; Brignoni Decl. at ¶¶5‐7, Exhs. D‐F.)1 Finding the responses and/or further responses deficient to (i) FR #1.1, 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1, (ii) SR #14, 19‐20, 23, 40‐41, 46, and 51‐53, (iii) RFPs #1‐5, 9, 17, 19, 31‐33, 37‐45, 53‐ 54, and (iv) RFAs #1‐2, 10‐11, 17‐20, 22, and 24, Plaintiffs Tindell and Libretti move to compel further responses...

Excerpt: ...he premises expert witness declarations would not be based on the new trial date. Now, Defendant seeks to subvert the court order they prepared in stipulated to. Defendants have not complied with Code Civ. Proc., §2034.720 and the motion must be denied. Here, Plaintiff will be prejudiced by allowing Defendant to submit tardy expert witness information. Plaintiff was prepared to go to trial in February 2020. Defendant offered to go to mediation a...