Excerpt: ...establishe s an affirmative defense to that cause of action. (p) For purposes of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication: (1) A plaintiff or cross -complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that par ty has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or crosscomplainant has met that burden, the burden shif...

Excerpt: ...er now but admonishes Defendant that the future failure to comply with all applicable rules and statutes may result in a motion being denied or taken off calendar, and sanctions, where appropriate. First Cause of Action for Inducing Breach of Contract and Second Cause of Actio n for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Defendant argues that the first cause of action fails to plead sufficient facts showing that Plaintiff had an ong...

Excerpt: ...ecificity as to the element s of active concealment and existence of a defect. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has not alleged when or where the alleged omitted information should or could have been revealed by Ford. Defendants further argue that the allegations fail to demonstr ate any duty to disclose because there was no transactional relationship between Plaintiff and Ford and that the claim is barred by the economic loss rule. The Cour...

Excerpt: ...a motion pursuan t to Section 391.1 is filed prior to trial the litigation is stayed, and the moving defendant need not plead, until 10 days after the motion shall have been denied, or if granted, until 10 days after the required security has been furnished and the moving defendant given written notice thereof. When a motion pursuant to Section 391.1 is made at any time thereafter, the litigation shall be stayed for such period after the denial ...

Excerpt: ...Summary A djudication “Summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) In addi tion, “[a] party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or...

Excerpt: ...ynolds (includi ng in the opposition to this demurrer): facts demonstrating a causal link between the protected activity and an adverse employment action. Reynolds efforts to align his resignation with Plaintiff Robinson's termination (3rdAC para. 64) to create Reynolds' adverse employment action fails. And Reynolds' categorizing the types of activity that amount to adverse employment action -- short of termination or demotion continue to be inad...

Excerpt: ... Hartwick D efendants' demurrer to the first cause of action for quiet title in the initial complaint with leave to amend on 06/16/2023. Plaintiffs filed the FAC on 06/26/2023. “A quiet title action seeks to declare the rights of the parties in realty.... The object o f the action is to finally settle and determine, as between the parties, all conflicting claims to the property in controversy, and to decree to each such interest or estate t...

Excerpt: ...urety Complai nt is a motor vehicle surety company. (Cross- Complaint (“X-C o m p .” ) , ¶¶ 1 & 5.) Old Republic issued a motion vehicle surety bond to CrossDefendant Panda Motors, Inc., under Chapter 4, Division 5 of the Vehicle Code (X -Comp., ¶ 5.) Panda Motors is a motor ve hicle dealer, which obtained a motor vehicle bond from Old Republic. (RJN, ¶ 1.) A number of persons have made claims or will make claims to Old Republic on the bo...

Excerpt: ...es to strike Plaintiff 's prayer for punitive damages. Defendant first argues that the fourth cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations and Plaintiff is not entitled to the delayed discovery rule. Code of Civil Procedure section 338(d) provides that an action for fraud must be brought within three years. “A plaintiff must bring a claim within the limitations period after accrual of the cause of action.” Fox v. Ethico...

Excerpt: ...e statute of limitatio ns and Plaintiff is not entitled to the delayed discovery rule. Code of Civil Procedure section 338(d) provides that an action for fraud must be brought within three years. 6 “A plaintiff must bring a claim within the limitations period after accrual of the cause of action.” Fox v. Ethicon Endo -Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 797, 806. “Generally speaking, a cause of action accrues at ‘the time when the cause of a...

Excerpt: ...inter alia, complexit y of case, skill exhibited, and results achieved. The prevailing buyer has burden of showing that fees incurred are allowable, reasonably necessary to conduct of litigation, and reasonable in amount.” (Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App .4th 99, 104 -105.) Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party entitled to recover fees pursuant to Civil Code §1794(d). While Defendant contends g...

Excerpt: ...sert the c laims due to the Divorce Decree issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, on September 29, 2023 (Divorce Decree). Specifically, Chartwell contends the Divorce Decree awarded the entire value of the “martial interest in Chartwe ll” to Tracy, Plaintiff's now ex -wife, and awarded Plaintiff nothing regarding the Chartwell shares. (See RJN, Exh. A, pp. 14, 18, 29.) Chartwell further contends, under New Yor...

Excerpt: ... issued its ruling on the MTQ on 10/30/23. (ROA #212.) Plaintiff Balboa Capital Corporation (“Plaintiff”) also filed and served a Notice of Ruling on the MTQ on 10/30/23. (ROA ##208, 210.) That Notice of Ruling was served via express mail, which extends the time to file a reco nsideration motion by two-court days. (Civ. Proc. Code § 1013(c).) Thus, Defendant had until 11/11/23 to file the present Motion. Instead, Defendant did not file t...

Excerpt: ...) Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. (See Armendariz v. Foundation Heath Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal 4th 83). Unconscionability is a contract defens e used to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening the Federal Arbitration Act or California law. (See OTO, LLC v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 125.) The evidence does reflect some level of procedural unconscio...

Excerpt: ...01) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-851 (Aguilar) [burden].) 24 Hour has demonstrated it was not a party to the contract at issue. (See Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821 [elements of breach of contract include, inter alia, existence of a contract]; Korc h e m n y v. Piterman (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1048 (Korchemny) [a common count used in the alternative to seek the same recovery demanded in a claim for breach of contract falls...

Excerpt: ...le 3.1354, subdivision (b). Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiff's Evidence Nos. 3, 4, 11 and 15 are OVERRULED. The court declines to rule on the remaining objections on the grounds that they are not material to the disposition of the Motion. Procedural defect: Defendants' separate statement is deficient as to the alternative motion for summary adjudication. On a motion for summary adjudication, the separate statement must tie each �...

Excerpt: ... by the insp ection demand. To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the document would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and (2) specific facts justif ying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (National Union Fire In...

Excerpt: ...nd Robert Cayton, also known as Orange County Superior Court Case Number 30 - 2012 - 00593016 -CUOE -CJC) ("Cayton Matter"). During the pendency of the Cayton Matter, but entirely unrelated to it, Plaintiff assisted the Chief Executive Officer of Defendant, Edward Clark ("Clark"), in a case involving the State Lands Commission. As a professional courtesy, any services Plaintiff provided to Clark related to Clark's case with th...

Excerpt: ...s required by the San Deigo County Superior Court. Plaintiffs HTL Hotel Advisors, Inc. and Yatish Natraj are ORDERED to pay to Defendants Shivam Patel and Kherva, LLC sanctions in the amount of $2,760 (6 hours x $450 per hour in reasonable attorney's fees and $60 in motion filing fees) within 60 days of service of the notice of ruling. Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to pay sanctions of $2,360 (5 hours at $450 per hour + $60 filing fee and $50 t...

Excerpt: ...23 Order requiring Wilshire and its former counsel, Jaime Kim, to jointly and severally pay Cross -Defendants Zenbu USA, Inc., Time Escrow, Inc., Paramount Realty and Omni Realty (collectively, “Cross -Defendants”) $5,300 in monetary sanctions related to several discovery mot ions filed by Cross- Defendants against Wilshire. As an initial matter, it is noted Wilshire did not submit an attorney affidavit of fault. Thus, relief under the manda...

Excerpt: ... Code of Civil Procedure § 410.30. Said section states: (a) When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in who le or in part on any conditions that may be just. (b) The provisions of Section 418.10 do not apply to a motion to stay or dismiss the action by a defendant who has made a gener...

Excerpt: ... be true. Blakemore v. Superior Court, 129 Cal. App. 4th 36, 53 (2005). “If facts appearing in the exhibits contradict those alleged, the facts in the exhibits take precedence.” Holland v. Morse Diesel Intern., Inc., 86 Cal. App. 4th 1443, 1447 (2001). Defendant argues that the challenged allegations must be stricken because they are inconsistent and/or contradictory to the terms of the Agreement attached to the Complaint, which do not eviden...

Excerpt: ...st Calhoon, bu t both the underlying discovery requests were served on Thomas's behalf only.] Initially, the court notes Thomas timely filed a proof of service relating to both motions, but the proof is for electronic service only. Gary II is selfrepresented, and theref ore may be served electronically only if he has expressly consented to electronic service, and electronic filing does not constitute express consent to electronic service. (Code...

Excerpt: ...hree causes of action. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 permits a special motion to strike Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) lawsuits. A SLAPP suit is “a meritless suit filed primarily to chill the defendant's exercise of First Amendmen t rights.” (Finton Construction, Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 200, 208.) The purpose of the anti - SLAPP law is “not [to] insulate defendants fro...

Excerpt: ...rer is OVERRU LED as to the first and second causes of action and SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend as to the third through fifth causes of action. The Regents demur to all five causes of action alleged in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). I. First Cau se of Action for Violation of California Whistleblower Protection Act (Govt. Code §§ 8547, et seq.) As described in Levi v. Regents of University of California: The [Califor...