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...

Excerpt: ...sustain 28. overrule B. Declaration of Floyd E. Clark (Exhibit C): 1. overrule 2. sustain 3. overrule 4. overrule 5. overrule 6. overrule 7. overrule 8. overrule 9. sustain C. Deposition of Bryan Shropshire (Exhibit 1): 1. – 2. overrule 3. sustain 4 4. ‐ 8. overrule 9. sustain D. Deposition of Arthur Andres (Exhibit 2): 1. ‐ 2. overrule 3. sustain 4. ‐ 9. overrule E. Deposition of Michael Pelletier (Exhibit 3): 1. ‐ 5. Overrule F. Depos...

Excerpt: ...dog. The motion is supported by a separate statement of fact, a declaration from defense counsel (Tracy W. Goldberg), and portions of the transcript from Foster's deposition. The undisputed facts presented with the motion indicate Foster was walking her dog, Doodles, when one of defendants' dog attacked and bit Doodles. (Fact No. 1.) In response, Foster attempted to protect Doodles by pulling him away from defendants' dog to get Doodle's back int...

Excerpt: ...he amount is reasonable. Counsel should confirm the exact amount of the administrator's fee 3. The requested attorney fee of 35% of the gross is excessive under the common fund doctrine and is unsupported by the lodestar analysis, which shows hourly rates substantially exceeding appropriate rates in the relevant community. The court will award 1/3 of the gross under the common fund doctrine, or $1,000,000.00. 4. The incentive fees of $15,000 each...

Excerpt: ...on contained in the SAC and make the mistaken assumption that a positive ruling as to the 1st, 4th, and 5th causes of action will moot the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th causes of action resulting in a judgment in their favor. Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c specific states: Page | 2 “… the fact that a motion for summary adjudication is granted as to one or more causes of action, affirmative defenses, claims for damages, or issues of duty within the...

Excerpt: ...te hearing, the Court set the matter on noticed motion, since it advised the parties that the March 22 trial would have to be continued due to COVID and the rules in place for social distancing. Once continued, it was hoped that the parties would come to some mutual agreement and have these depositions noticed by agreement once a new trial date is set at the TSC which will not occur until January, 2022 or later. After being called by the Court's ...

Excerpt: ...were willful and deliberate, and that they constitute a wanton disregard of Plaintiff's interests. (Complaint, ¶¶ 25‐26.) However, the Motion to Strike does not move to strike these portions of the Complaint. 2 for punitive damages against him, as there are no facts pled demonstrating Defendant's actions or inactions rose to the level of malice, oppression, or fraud. Statement of Law “Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a plead...

Excerpt: ...ently filed Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion rather than the Motion to Strike itself. Meanwhile, it appears the Motion was served on Plaintiff as she filed her Opposition to the Motion on December 10, 2020. A Reply was filed on December 16, 2020. However, as the Motion was never filed with the Court, it was not placed on calendar. On March 15, 2021, Defendants refiled the Motion to Strike Punitive Damages. The Court notes that there h...

Excerpt: ... that ruling be exhausted or waived, both FedEx Office and the Team Member nevertheless waive their right to proceed before a jury, meaning all actions shall proceed only before a judge.” Plaintiff's claims of procedural unconscionability are not persuasive. There is no evidence that Plaintiff was unaware of the arbitration agreement or that he did not understand it. There is no evidence Plaintiff specifically asked about the arbitration agreem...

Excerpt: ...dismiss the individual claims with prejudice, and therefore seeks “reconsideration” of the minute order. While a mistake on the part of counsel would not constitute proper grounds for a motion for reconsideration, and a motion for reconsideration filed more than ten days later would be untimely, no motion was necessary, because the individual claims were never, in fact, dismissed with prejudice. The only papers filed with the court by the dea...

Excerpt: ...e damages, as the conscious disregard of the safety of others is not, by itself, sufficient to establish malice or oppression. 2 Plaintiff timely filed his Opposition on April 9, 2021, arguing his allegation that Andrew Rodriguez willfully and wantonly operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and in total disregard of the health and safety of Plaintiff's father is sufficient, at the pleading stage, and before any discovery is conducted, to ove...

Excerpt: ...Ralph Diaz. On August 14, 2019, Petitioner, a correctional officer with the CDCR was served with a “notice of adverse action” accusing her of violating CDCR policies in connection with an attempted prison escape. Based on the policy violations, Petitioner's salary was reduced by 5% for ten pay periods. Page 3 of 12 Petitioner appealed the notice of adverse action and the appeal was heard by an SPB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ rende...

Excerpt: ...stice seem[] to require such action.” (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 886.) The proponent of the stay or protective order must establish good cause. (GT, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 748, 754 [indicating “a presumption of good cause exists should be indulged only if circumstances warrant”].) The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated that the power to stay a proceeding is incidental to the power inhere...

Excerpt: ... at the time of the determination.' [Citation.]” (Bussard, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 864.) Liberality should be exercised in granting continuances when they are not prejudicial to the other parties. (Capital Nat. Bank of Sacramento, supra, 62 Cal.App.2d at p. 339.) Further, and as noted, in determining whether good cause exists to continue trial, “threats to procedural fairness” is a “touchstone for granting such a motion.” (Panoche,...

Excerpt: ...'s counsel, David M. DeBerry, also declares the statute of limitations defense has also been the subject of written discovery propounded on Plaintiffs. (DeBerry Decl., ¶7.) DeBerry further declares at the demurrer hearing in early 2020, Great Dane requested a limited discovery stay to allow it to proceed with a summary judgment motion on the statute of limitations defense. (DeBerry Decl., ¶8.) Great Dane argues the omission of the statute of li...

Excerpt: ...l analysis whether phasing or not phasing the trial would result in undue prejudice for one party or another. Finally, there is no reason to believe that an unphased trial will result in confusion for the jury. Appropriate jury instructions and a carefully worded special verdict can guide the jury appropriately. ...

Excerpt: ...Gonzalez. But if the judgment in Staublein is reversed, this case could then proceed, but only for the time‐period after the time‐period covered by Staublein. The most sensible approach is to stay this case in its entirety pending resolution of Staublein, as plaintiff offered before defendant filed the demurrer. The demurrers are therefore overruled. No answer is required at this time because the matter is stayed pending resolution of the Sta...

Excerpt: ...ess was. This issue was addressed at length in Lasalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th127 [4th Dist.] where a judgment was reversed based on a default where the only notice that default would be taken was sent by email and a letter demanding an answer be filed the following day, noting that Code of Civil Procedure section 583.130 requires cooperation between the parties in bringing the action to trial. [other citations omitted] ˋSo what we review...

Excerpt: ...he woman behind the hotel desk or the assistant manager. The moving party must satisfy his or her initial burden before the opposing party must controvert anything. (§ 437c, subd. (p)(1), (2).) Accordingly, a moving defendant who claims that the plaintiff cannot prove all the elements of his case must present evidence in support of this claim. The defendant cannot simply challenge the plaintiff to prove his case by opposition. (Aguilar, supra, 2...