Excerpt: ...m seeking an award of costs of proof under section 2033.420. The case Plaintiffs rely on, City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Assocs., LLC, 235 Cal. App. 4th 344, 348 (2015), is distinguishable since it involves a federal law that expressly limited remedies to equitable relief. Under section 2033.420, if a party fails to admit the truth of any matter when requested to do so, and if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the truth of t...

Excerpt: ...led their SLAPP motion. On August 24, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to conduct limited discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(g). The written order was filed on September 23, 2021. On October 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed her opposition to the SLAPP motions and on November 1, 2021, Defendants filed their replies. Between the time that Defendants filed their motion and Plaintiff filed her opposition, the Supreme Court iss...

Excerpt: ...t by Plaintiffs Vincent Pluvinage and VPV, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) is ruled on as follows: A party may move to strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (C.C.P. § 436(a).) The Motion to Strike Paragraph 22, lines 15 to 17, is DENIED. Defendants seek to strike the allegations regarding the CHALLENGES article that they claim are false. In support Defendants request judicial notice of this article. (See Defendants...

Excerpt: ...date, which had already been continued five times, was set for Jan. 11, 2022. Over Defendant's opposition, the Court thereafter granted Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue the Jan. 2022 trial date to Aug. 2022, in light of the fact Plaintiff had already filed the present motion seeking to re‐open discovery, which was set to be heard on 2‐7‐22, after the scheduled Jan. 2022 trial date. The Court's 10 ‐27‐21 Order continuing the ...

Excerpt: ...enancy was waived. Id. at ¶8(c)(1). The 60‐Day Notice of Termination of Tenancy attached to the FAC as Ex. 2, indicates: “Possession of the premises is sought pursuant to California Civil Code § 1946 and California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161(1). Possession of the premises is also sought pursuant to California Civil Code § 1946.2 (b)(2)(A)(i) Intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or their spouse, domestic partner,...

Excerpt: ... of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation and Tenth Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation in the Second Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs Vincent Pluvinage and VPV LLC (“Plaintiffs”), is OVERRULED. Defendants demur that these causes of action fail to state facts sufficient to support them because Plaintiffs fail to plead the alleged misrepresentations with the requisite specificity. These Causes of Action are based on the same allege...

Excerpt: ...has not met its burden to show that the Second Cause of Action in the Cross‐Complaint of Putnam Automotive, Inc. and Kent Putnam (collectively, “Putnam”) is completely barred by the applicable statute of limitations. C.C.P. § 437c(p)(2). A. Tennessee's Six‐Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Putnam's Second Cause of Action. Putnam's second cause of action alleges that Nissan based its decision to not pay Putnam $950,000 under the part...

Excerpt: ...et forth below. Plaintiffs have not opposed Defendants' motions. Rather, on January 24, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint seeks to add causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair business practices, and nuisance. The right to amend under Code Civ. Proc. § 472, however, is limited to the original complaint; there is no right to amend, without leave of court, an amended complain...

Excerpt: ...cise of this Court's discretion; or under any other statute. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the default judgment entered December 14, 20219 is void on its face. There is no dispute here the December 2019 Judgment is not void on its face. See 1‐26‐22 Reply brief at 3. An order is considered void on its face only when the invalidity is apparent from an inspection of the judgment roll or court record, without considering extrinsic evid...

Excerpt: ...pertaining to Defendant/Judgment debtor dating back to 2017. The documents are sought as part of Plaintiffs' efforts to collect on their 12‐23‐19 Judgment. Defendant separately filed a motion to vacate the Judgment. Defendant argues the bank records will be largely irrelevant if the Judgment is vacated, because Plaintiffs will no longer be judgment creditors. Alternatively, Defendant argues that even if the Judgment is not vacated, the subpoe...

Excerpt: ...nd Melanie Cole, as an individual (“Plaintiff”) is ruled on as follows: The Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract is OVERRULED. Plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to support that Defendant is liable for breach of contract based on Defendant's alleged breach of the written Admission Agreement. (See FAC, ¶¶ 65, 67, and Exh. A, ¶¶ 8, 10.) The term “supervision promises” is not so uncertain that Defendant cannot rea...

Excerpt: ... and building materials furnished to Plaintiffs but not paid for, that factual allegations in the lien were verified under penalty of perjury as true by Defendant Berry, and that the factual allegations made in the lien were untrue. Complaint, ¶15. Defendant Berry signed the lien as the agent of Verco Ex. B to Complaint. These allegations are taken as true for purposes of demurrer. Plaintiffs sue Berco and Berry in the first cause of action for ...

Excerpt: ...t”) is ruled on as follows: The Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Motion addresses only the open book account and account stated claims, even though Plaintiff alleges other common count claims in the Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to meet its initial burden of establishing that it is entitled to summary judgment. The Motion for Summary Adjudication to the open book account and account stated claims is also DENIED. Plaintiff's ev...

Excerpt: ...requiring Plaintiff to provide verified responses to Defendant's Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demands for Inspection, Set One. According to the declaration of Defendant's counsel, “To date, plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's orders and has failed to properly respond to discovery.” Olsen Decl., ¶ 8. Defendant does not seek any lesser sanctions in its notice of motion or motion. Defendant re...

Excerpt: ...eover, a failure to file a memorandum of points and authorities constitutes an admission that the motion is not meritorious and cause for its denial. CRC 3.1113(a). Even if the Court construes the one‐page document Plaintiff filed as a memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiff fails to provide a concise statement of the law, as required by CRC 3.1113(a). Notwithstanding the above, the motion is also denied because Plaintiff fails to meet ...

Excerpt: ... action for violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 on the grounds that “it is clear that the entire claim rests on Defendant's alleged mishandling of Plaintiff's claim and nothing more.” MPA, p.4. According to Defendant, “the claim involves only private harm which is not actionable.” Id. Defendant further asserts that Plaintiff's cannot state a cause of action because “Plaintiff fails to identify a single other policy or policyholder w...

Excerpt: ...Cause of Action for “fraud and deceit” is OVERRULED. Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 430.10(e). The Court sustained GM's demurrer to this cause of action in the SAC on grounds that, pursuant to the “Economic Loss Rule,” fraud by concealment is not actionable. See 9‐17‐21 Order; citing Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979. As explained in Robinson Helicopter, to assert a fraud claim against GM under these circumstances, Pl...

Excerpt: ... Pacific Partners Management Services, Inc. (Motion) is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant's request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff's counsel is ORDERED to pay Defendant $3,080.00— which represents “the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by” Defendant in opposing this Motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) The Motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 48, 58, 59, 62, 63, 72, 93‐97, ...

Excerpt: ...Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied his meet and confer obligations. Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter addressing Defendant's responses to the discovery requests at issue on September 7, 2021. Defendant provided further responses on September 17, 2021. Although there is no evidence that Plaintiff attempted further meet and confer after September 17, 2021 , Defendant's further responses did not address any of the issues raised by Plaint...

Excerpt: ... James H. Seymour (Defendants' Counsel) (Sanctions Motion) is DENIED. Plaintiff seeks sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 128.7 on the ground that Defendants' Motion for New Trial (New Trial Motion) was frivolous and harassing. The Court, however, concludes that Plaintiff has not established that the New Trial Motion was frivolous or brought in bad faith. As an initial matter, the Court notes that no order appears to have b...

Excerpt: ...ed each of the specific requests for sealing as well as the pleadings filed regarding this motion. This Court in exercising its discretion, after considering and balancing all the factors in California Rule of Court 2.550 and NBC Subsidiary (KNBC‐TV), Inc. (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178, 1204 (“KNBCTV”) specifically finds for each of the portions identified below: (i) there exists an overriding interest, which (ii) overcomes the right of public ac...

Excerpt: ...ing the record and weighing the Tech‐Bilt factors finds that Transmetro has met its burden of demonstrating Plaintiff's settlement with Defendants A3 Mobility, LLC and Jose Antonio Rodriguez, Jr., for the collectively sum of $50,000, was not entered into in good faith for purposes of Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 877.6 and Tech‐Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward‐Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499‐500. Even without considering the sworn November 10,...

Excerpt: ...tioners Mustafa Edais and Majeda Edais (“Plaintiffs”), is OVERRULED. Plaintiffs' Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint alleges three causes of action concerning Defendants' alleged failure to comply with Plaintiffs' California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request. The CPRA request seeks all documents received or generated by, or currently in the possession of the San Mateo County Coroner's Office in connection with the death ...

Excerpt: ...ED. Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 431.10(e), (f). Second Cause of Action (Bus. & Prof. Code Sect. 7031) De Bibo's Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action, alleging a violation of Bus. & Prof. Code Sect. 7031, is OVERRULED. De Bibo argues this cause of action, as well as the Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action (alleging fraud/negligent misrepresentation), are time‐ barred on their face. (Mot. at 13‐14). However, Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 430.41(b) prevents De...

Excerpt: ...ummary judgment, a moving defendant may prove an affirmative defense, disprove at least one essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action [citations] or show that an element of the cause of action cannot be established [citations]. [Citation.] The defendant ‘must show that under no possible hypothesis within the reasonable purview of the allegations of the complaint is there a material question of fact which requires examination by trial...