Excerpt: ...t the scope of these requests to information pertaining to conduct similar to the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff also agreed to limit the timeframe from January 1, 2010 to the present. (Decl. Loh ¶ 7, Exhibit 3.)  GRANTED as to Request for Production (Set One), Request No. 18 and Request for Production (Set Two), Request No. 57. Defendant iPASS, INC. is ordered to serve full and complete, verified responses to the foregoing d...

Excerpt: ...version for the Court's signature. Defendant correctly notes that cases should normally be prosecuted under the parties' true names. Code Civ. Proc. § 367. However, this rule is not absolute. Courts have authority to permit the use of pseudonyms in various circumstances, such as where doing so is necessary to protect against harassment, injury, embarrassment, and social stigmatization. See, e.g., Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp. (9th ...

Excerpt: ...tion of plaintiff's total recovery nor defendant's proportionate share of that liability. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties. ...

Excerpt: ...ntially completed on September 19, 2007. (5th Am. Complaint ¶ 51.) Therefore, the deadline was September 18, 2017. Plaintiff named the AC&H for the first time in the Third Amended Complaint, which was filed October 24, 2017, one month after the 10‐year deadline. Plaintiff contends that AC&H was timely named in June 22, 2017, when Plaintiff substituted AC&H for Doe 16. The argument lacks merit. “Even if a plaintiff meets the other requirement...

Excerpt: ... the subject property. Thus, the two year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 339(1) does not apply to Defendant. Although section 339(1) “generally” applies to claim for professional negligence (Thomson v. Canyon (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 594, 606), the limitations periods of sections 337.1 and 337.15 are specific to claim for design defects in the construction of real property. Sections 337.1 and 337.15 apply to a cl...

Excerpt: ...LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff has not established that he is entitled to recover punitive damages. (See Gov. Code § 818 [“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public entity is not liable for damages awarded under Section 3294 of the Civil Code or other damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.”.) The motion to strike the relief sought in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Relief Sought & Compensa...

Excerpt: ...for “Wrongful Trustee Sale,” the claim lacks merit for multiple reasons, first because Eagle Vista played no part in the trustee's sale. Plaintiff contends the banking entities that foreclosed upon and sold Plaintiff's home, whom Plaintiff has dismissed from the case with prejudice, lacked the authority to foreclose and failed to comply with various statutory requirements pertaining to a non‐judicial foreclosure sale. This argument/cause of...

Excerpt: ...les of Court, Rule 2.112, including by separately listing each cause of action, its nature, and the defendant to whom it is directed. The demurrer based on failure to comply with the claims presentation requirement in the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §§ 900, et seq.), is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for Plaintiff to allege facts to support such compliance. Although Plaintiff generally alleges he complied with the claims presentation requir...

Excerpt: ...ubstantive allegation is that Old South performed services for which it received payment from Crosscomplainants. The allegations, if proven, could support a jury's finding that Old South was a party to the implied‐in‐fact contract with Cross‐complainants. Demurrer to the fourth cause of action (unfair business practice) is overruled. A corporate plaintiff may not bring a representative suit under the Unfair Competition Law. (Linear Technolo...

Excerpt: ...mplaint (TAC). On 2‐8‐18, when Defendants filed the motion, the operative Complaint was Plaintiff Ryce's First Amended Complaint (FAC), filed 3‐17‐17. Thereafter, on 3‐18‐18, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC), and then on 6‐13‐18, filed a Third Amended Complaint (TAC), which currently serves as the operative pleading. Defendants have filed a Demurrer to the TAC, which is set for a hearing on 8‐21‐18. The TAC sup...

Excerpt: ...bd. (a).) Further, NICOLOSI does not specify in the Notice of Motion or Points and Authorities that the motion is based on any judicially noticeable matter. (Id. section. 437, subd. (b.)) Even if the Court were to consider the matters set forth in the moving Declaration of Franck, the Court would find that the Roe amendment is not necessarily improper. Although L & J possibly knew the name “Axalta” when filing the cross‐complaint, the oppos...

Excerpt: ...vice of the verified responses, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties agree in writing, or the propounding party waives any right to compel further response. (C.C.P. sec. 2030.300(c).) The court lacks jurisdiction to order further response where a motion to compel is not timely filed. (Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.) There is no dispute that Plaintiff s...

Excerpt: ...ation was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) Further, notwithstanding this procedural defect, Plaintiff has not presented any new or different facts, circumstances or law to warrant reconsideration of the Order. Defendant's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. If the tentative ruling is un...

Excerpt: ...urt previously ruled on Defendant's motion to tax costs, the judgment had not been satisfied as of the time Plaintiff claimed costs. Plaintiff filed the present motion on June 26, 2018. There is no evidence before the court that Defendant satisfied the judgment before Plaintiff filed the present motion. Therefore, the motion is timely. Plaintiff's motion sets forth a prima facie showing of hours incurred for enforcement of judgment, as well as ea...

Excerpt: ...o comply with CRC Rule 3.1350. Defendants set forth 109 facts that they contend are material for disposing of the entire complaint. (See Moving Separate Statement at pp.1‐22.) Defendants then repeat the same 109 facts and same evidence in support of summary adjudication as to the second through tenth causes of action (but not the first cause of action). This style of Separate Statement, while convenient for the moving party, violates the requir...

Excerpt: ...ired by Code Civ. Proc. § 439, which requires that the parties (or their attorneys, if represented) actually speak to each other, or make a genuine attempt to speak to each other, either in‐person or by phone, regarding the substance of the motion. An exchange of correspondence does not suffice. Attorney Pappas' 5‐ 15‐18 declaration (filed 5‐17‐18) does not comply with this requirement. It refers only to two emails, and provides no ind...

Excerpt: ...even if it did, the FAC would still state a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Defendant shall Answer the Complaint within five (5) days of Notice of Entry of this Order. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords suffi...

Excerpt: ...n May 4, 2018 as payment for the judgment. In support, Defendant relies on Gray1 CPB LLC v. SCC Acquisitions, Inc. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 882 (“Gray”). In Gray, the debtor tendered a cashier's check for more than the amount owed on the judgment, and the creditor proceeded to file a Memorandum of Costs After Judgment and then cashed the cashier's check. The Gray court held that if the judgment creditor is presented with a check for the full am...

Excerpt: ...ge log, and the hearing on Defendant PriceWaterhouseCoopers' Joinder in the same motion, is continued to Aug. 3, 2018 at 9 a.m. in the Law & Motion Dept. In part due to documents being filed under seal, the Court has not had sufficient time to review LocusPoint's Reply papers. No later than July 25, 2018, each party may (but is not required to) file an additional brief not exceeding two pages, further addressing the following issues: (a) how many...

Excerpt: ...was filed on July 12, 2018, there was insufficient time to consider the matter prior to the current hearing date. As a result, the hearing on the demurrer is continued to July 26, 2018. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling af...

Excerpt: ...e insufficient to support disqualification under Calif. Rule of Professional Conduct 3‐310. First, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the formation of an attorney‐client relationship. The Court acknowledges that meeting with a potential client can, in some circumstances, create an attorney‐client relationship. Here, the motion is based on a 30‐minute meeting held over three years ago, in May 2015, between Plaintiff Vida's mana...

Excerpt: ...t INTERSTATES VANLINES, LLC. (Decl. Kutsevol, Exhibits A‐F.) They are non‐signatories to the Forum Selection Clause contained in Exhibits C and D, and thus have no standing to enforce it against Plaintiff. Moreover, the Forum Selection Clause expressly states that it applies only as between INTERSTATES VANLINES, LLC and Plaintiff, and not to any “agents, contractors, employees, and representatives”. (Decl. Kutsevol, Exhibits C and D at Se...

Excerpt: ...ld be promoted by the change of venue. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties. ...

Excerpt: ...ation on the Merits. In the First Action (Case No.16 CIV 02108), the Court sustained demurrer without leave to amend. Judgment, however, was never entered. Regardless, Plaintiff filed a Dismissal with Prejudice on August 29, 2017. The voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice satisfies the “judgment in prior action” requirement. (Roybal v. Univ. Ford (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 1080, 1085.) 2. The Parties Between the Two Actions Are “Identical.” Alt...

Excerpt: ...use of Action for Equitable Contribution is OVERRULED. Defendant argues that equitable contribution does not apply because Plaintiff and Defendant are not coobligors, focusing on the allegation that Plaintiff never had, and does not have a duty to defend CrossChannel in the underlying suit. (See Comp. ¶ 30.) However, Plaintiff also alleges that both Plaintiff and Defendant issued policies to CrossChannel, that Plaintiff agreed to provide a defen...