Excerpt: ... because the challenged evidence is not deemed material to disposition of the motion. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (q).) TCLC alleges claims of damages arising from being constructively evicted after Defendant De Ritz (“LANDLORD”) failed to make tenant improvements that were required by the Lease. LANDLORD's motion argues that (1) its obligation to perform never arose because TCLC failed to fulfill a condition precedent of providing pro...

Excerpt: ...mplant Dentistry Institute LLC to Active Status is DENIED. BAII seeks reconsideration on the ground that the Court erred in granting relief on the basis of Government Code section 12261(a)(2), but a section 1008 motion is not the proper vehicle for correcting judicial errors. Glob. Protein Prod., Inc. v. Le (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 352, 364. Nonetheless, the Court has broad and inherent powers to reconsider its rulings (see, e.g., Marriage of Bartho...

Excerpt: ...s”) to defendant BBV, Nos. 24‐52, is GRANTED‐IN‐PART. The motion for protective order is GRANTED. In the Court's discretion, the sanctions requests are DENIED. The intrusiveness of Plaintiff's discovery requests clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 2017.020(a). Discovery rights are broad, but not limitless. The information/documents sought mus...

Excerpt: ...nd that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendants do not assert that the notice fails to advise them of the conduct alleged to have constituted a violation of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1161(4). Rather, Defendants contend that the conduct alleged in the notice does not amount to a nuisance or violation of the law under Section 1161(4). Defendants' argument is unpersuasive for the reasons set forth belo...

Excerpt: ...d in an order for restitution in a prior criminal proceeding. According to Defendant, “There is privity between Plaintiffs and the State of California.” MPA, p.10. Defendant, however, presents no authority supporting the claim that victims or participants in a criminal trial are in “privity” with the State for purposes of application of res judicata or collateral estoppel in a subsequent civil proceeding. In his reply, Defendant acknowled...

Excerpt: ... Second Amended Complaint is OVERRULED. Plaintiff's FAC alleged violations of RESPA as the Fifth COA, and Defendants' demurrer to that pleading was sustained with leave to amend as to that COA so that Plaintiff could allege the alternate theory of violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq (UCL), as Plaintiff has done here in the SAC. Particularity Defendants argue that Plaintiff's UCL claim is not pled with sufficient particularity beca...

Excerpt: ...rer to each cause of action in the FAC based on uncertainty is OVERRULED. The “uncertainties” must be specified (Fenton v. Groveland Comm. Services Dist. (1982) 135 CA3d 797, 809), but Defendants fail to address this demurrer in their papers. The demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Quiet Title based on failure to state a claim is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. This cause of action is based on Plaintiff's claim that his lease may only...

Excerpt: ...The Attachment Law requires strict construction; unless specifically provided for by the Attachment Law, no attachment procedure may be ordered by the court. Pacific Decision Sciences Corp. v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1106. As the moving party, Plaintiffs have the burden of proving a proper basis for Attachment. C.C.P. §484.090. Here, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the probable validity of their claims against Defendant Jeff...

Excerpt: ...er of them Is Indigent. The court may waive the bond requirement when the appellant “is indigent and is unable to obtain sufficient sureties . . . .” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 995.240.) Nadine Bagnarol presents no evidence of her financial state. The Court cannot find that she is indigent for purposes of Section 995.240. Carolina Bagnarol claims that her only assets are her interest in the LLC, her interest in the Canyon and Vera properties, and...

Excerpt: ...e Court's July 27 ruling provides as follows: Once again, Petitioners have provided no clear argument or pertinent authority indicating that the judgment was issued based on an incorrect or erroneous legal conclusion. They want the Court to consider new alleged facts, which is not a proper basis for a motion to vacate. A motion to vacate the judgment may only be brought when the trial judge draws an incorrect legal conclusion or renders an errone...

Excerpt: ...Civil Procedure § 425.17(b) arguments and explain how the facts of those cases are similar to the allegations of Plaintiff's complaint. Regarding Prong 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 analysis, the Court refers the parties to Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995 and Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, which were not cited in their briefs. Plaintiff shall refer to where in ...

Excerpt: ... based on: (1) an open book, (2) an account stated, (3) money lent, and (4) money expended. However, Plaintiff's memorandum in support of the motion attempts to demonstrate that Plaintiff has established claims for (1) an open book, and (2) an account stated. (MPA, p.3‐5.) Accordingly, because Plaintiff has addressed only two of its four claims, Plaintiff has not demonstrated it is entitled to summary judgment. Nonetheless, the Court finds that...

Excerpt: ...s because it omits Defendant's apartment number. Defendant states in her declaration that she never received the notice of renewal of judgment in the mail and that she only learned about this case when Plaintiff started to garnish her wages. Fuentes Decl., ¶¶ 8‐9. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff's service of the notice of renewal is invalid. (See Moghaddam v. Bone, 142 Cal. App. 4th 283, 288 (2006).) Thus, the 30‐ day deadline to file ...

Excerpt: ... the FAC that may rise to the level of oppression or malice is essentially a threat to coerce Plaintiff into settling its claims against Defendant by use of whistleblower claims. FAC, ¶ 59. Such conduct is protected by the litigation privilege. See Asia Inv. Co. v. Borowski, 133 Cal. App. 3d 832, 842 (Ct. App. 1982) (counsel's alleged threat to bring a CEQA action in order to induce plaintiff to settle was protected by the litigation privilege s...

Excerpt: .... 452(d). The doctrine of res judicata Under the doctrine of “res judicata,” or “claim preclusion,” a valid, final judgment on the merits is a bar to a subsequent action by parties or their privies on the same “cause of action.” Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2008) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896‐ 97; Amin v. Khazindar (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 582, 589–590. Under this doctrine, all claims based on the same “cause of action” must be decided ...

Excerpt: ... a claim for unjust enrichment, while not a standalone cause of action, may be construed as a restitution claim. See Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Plaza Del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 221, 231; McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 379 (unjust enrichment was an attempt to plead a cause of action for restitution). However, Plaintiff's breach of contract claim pleads the existence of an enforceable agreement and its unjust enrichment claim cover...

Excerpt: ... notice under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). Thus, this Motion is continued to provide adequate notice to Plaintiff First Resolution Investment Corporation (“Plaintiff”). Defendant is to provide notice of this new date to all parties and file the proof of service by November 22, 2021. If the proof of service is not filed showing timely service, the Court will not consider the motion. Additionally, the Court has reviewed Defendant's ...

Excerpt: ... Electric, Inc., Richard Wulff, and Ann Wulff. A. The Motion to Vacate Default Is Untimely. Before moving to vacate the default judgment, Defendants must first vacate the entry of default. A motion to vacate entry of default must be filed timely, but in no case more than six months after entry of default. Defaults were entered against Wulff Electric and Richard Wulff on September 29, 2020. Default against Ann Wulff was entered on October 13, 2020...

Excerpt: ...�21, 2‐ 8‐21, and 2‐9‐21, the opposition papers, filed 3‐9‐21, and the reply, filed 3‐16‐21. The Court did not need to consider the amended opposition papers of Plaintiff Mary Elizabeth LeMasters (“Plaintiff”), filed 10‐12‐21. The Court also did not consider Plaintiff's Exhibit Nos. 6‐ 20. Plaintiff attempted to file these documents under seal on October 12, 2021, pursuant to the parties' 6‐3‐20 Stipulation and Order...

Excerpt: ...he reason(s) stated below. The meet and confer requirement set forth in Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 430.41, which governs demurrers, is intended to ensure that the parties discuss, either in person or by phone, at least five days before a demurrer is filed, the issues to be raised in a demurrer, in the hopes that the parties can resolve their issues/objections informally and without the need for Court intervention. Here, the Zulch declaration supportin...

Excerpt: ...re of the time and date of this hearing, the Court overlooks the defect. Plaintiff's counsel is also directed to comply with California Rules of Court and Local Rules of Court regarding electronically filed documents. Specifically, exhibits must be bookmarked. (CRC Rule 3.1110(f) [“electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or lette...

Excerpt: ...could have reinstated the loan through a personal loan, which would have been approved given Charles Taniguchi's credit score, but Plaintiffs' responses indicate that they lack knowledge as to whether they could have obtained a personal loan using Marie Taniguchi's credit score. The Court agrees that the interrogatory does not require Plaintiffs to disclose their specific credit scores, but they have a duty to make reasonable efforts to obtain th...

Excerpt: ...ormation Radio dba Sing Tao Chinese Radio (“Defendants”) for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, to the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) by Plaintiff Ning Yuan Chang (“Plaintiff”), is DENIED. Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) none of the alleged statements were defamatory since they did not imply that Plaintiff was a murderer; (2) the alleged statements by Defendants were privilege...

Excerpt: ...ason(s) stated below. First, Plaintiffs' 10‐22‐21 Reply brief, and the supporting Decl. of Michael Smith, include evidence that was not provided with DDLV's moving papers. Therefore, any party choosing to oppose the motion, including Continental, has not had a chance to respond to this new evidence. Further, and perhaps more importantly, counsel for DDLV and Continental have indicated to the Court that through their on‐going meet and confer...

Excerpt: ...nary matter, the Court notes that the Fund failed to separately and specifically set forth the grounds for the demurrer in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 430.60; California Rule of Court Rule 3.1320(a). Despite this procedural defect, the Court considers the substance of the demurrer. The Fund challenges only CSNI's claim for quantum meruit. “To recover on a claim for the reasonable value of services under a quantum meruit theory, a pl...