Claims for Failure to Recall in California

Brief, p. 2.) [2] Negligent Failure to Recall Last time, the Court continued the hearing because the Personal Injury Plaintiffs failed to cite authority recognizing a claim for negligent failure to recall against an officer or director. (See, e.g., 1/25/22 Tentative Ruling Re: Bowens Demurrer and Motion to Strike, p. 5.) This time, the Personal Injury Plaintiffs cite 12 cases.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s failure to recall does not place authenticity at issue. Based on Ruiz, however, Plaintiff’s failure to recall signing the arbitration agreement requires Defendants to authenticate Plaintiff’s signature. Defendants assert that the Arbitration Agreement attached to the Turnbull declaration as Exhibit A is admissible under Evidence Code section 1271.

subject vehicle; (2) that defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the subject vehicle was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner; (3) that defendant became aware of the defect after the subject vehicle was sold; (4) that defendant failed to recall or warn of the danger of the subject vehicle; (5) that a reasonable seller under the same or similar circumstances would have recalled the vehicle; (6) that plaintiff was harmed; and (7) that defendant’s failure to recall

If an employee denies signing, or even indicates a failure to recall electronically signing the agreement, the moving party has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature is authentic. ( Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846.)

s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend as to the fourth and fifth causes of action for strict liability based on design defect, granted with 20 days leave to amend as to the seventh cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, and denied as to the sixth and ninth causes of action for strict liability based on manufacturing defect and negligence based on failure to recall the product.

Cal. 2020) 2020 WL 7222098 discusses causes of action for negligence and negligent failure to recall against a manufacturer, not a dealer. Similarly, Seely v. White Motor Co. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 9 only discusses claims against a manufacturer. The other cases Elk Grove relies on do not involve Lemon Law claims or negligent repair causes of action. The court is not persuaded by Elk Gove's argument that Plaintiff's negligent repair claim "arises from, and is not independent of, the warranty contract."

(Irwin) and Applied Nutrition (AN) for strict product liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn/negligent failure to recall and loss of consortium. On November 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a FAC, removing AN as a Defendant. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Robinson Pharma, Inc. (Robinson). On December 7, 2021, Irwin filed an answer. On July 7, 2022, Robinson filed an answer.

On 8/10/23, pursuant to stipulation and order, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) Strict Liability Design Defect, (2) Negligence Failure to Recall and (3) Negligence. The Second Amended Complaint included a claim for punitive damages against Clorox.

into issue the first cause of action (COA) for breach of contract through breach of express warranty; the second COA for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; the third COA for strict liability for manufacturing defect; the fourth COA for strict liability for design defect consumer expectations; the fifth COA for strict liability for design defect risk benefit; the sixth COA for strict liability for failure to warn; the seventh COA for general negligence; the eighth COA for negligent failure to recall

“[I]f a plaintiff presented with a handwritten signature on an arbitration agreement is unable to allege the signature is inauthentic or forged, the plaintiff's failure to recall signing the agreement neither creates a factual dispute as to the signature's authenticity nor affords an independent basis to find that a contract was not formed.” (Ramirez v. Golden Queen Mining Co., LLC (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 821, 835, as modified (June 11, 2024).) The FAA applies to the agreement.

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs are partly correct in arguing that a toxic-torts plaintiff’s failure to recall a particular product is not sufficient to establish an absence of triable issues of fact on exposure. (Opposition at p. 8.) Toxic torts generally occur over long time frames, and a plaintiff’s failure to recall a particular product from decades earlier is not necessarily sufficient to shift the burden from defendant to plaintiff on summary judgment. (See Weber v.

This does not support a finding of criminal intent because Santoros subjective feelings or failure to recall them does not sufficiently prove his intent to deprive Yu of his property. Diego v. City of Los Angeles (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 338, 356. The conversations between Santoro and Longarzo additionally do not support the intention argument because it is also speculative as to Santoros state of mind.

If the claim is re-framed as one for failure to recall a temporarily laid-off employee, Plaintiff has made the showing based on Defendants posting ads for her old position before attempting to reach out to her. The fact that Defendant ultimately did reach out to Plaintiff does little to rebut this showing, as no such outreach was made until Plaintiff filed this action.

On 8/10/23, pursuant to stipulation and order, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) Strict Liability Design Defect, (2) Negligence Failure to Recall and (3) Negligence. The Second Amended Complaint included a claim for punitive damages against Clorox.

The Court of Appeal held that this failure to recall placed the burden “of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic” back on the defendants. (Id. at p. 846.) The court held: Though Ruiz did not deny that the electronic signature on the 2011 agreement was his, he claimed he did not recall signing the 2011 agreement and would not have signed it had it been presented to him.

Plaintiff Tina Kalb alleges that the filter at issue was defective and/or improperly implanted, and brings causes of action for medical malpractice, strict liability-failure to warn, strict liability-design defect, negligence, negligent failure to recall, breach of express and implied warranty, and negligent misrepresentation.

This does not support a finding of criminal intent because Santoros subjective feelings or failure to recall them does not sufficiently prove his intent to deprive Yu of his property. Diego v. City of Los Angeles (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 338, 356. The conversations between Santoro and Longarzo additionally do not support the intention argument because it is also speculative as to Santoros state of mind.

Negligent Failure to Recall 6. Fraudulent Concealment 7. Violation of Californias False Advertising Law 8. Violation of Californias Unfair Competition Law 9. Fraud 10. Wrongful Death 11. Survival Action On January 14, 2020, Plaintiffs dismissed TMM California, without prejudice.

In the face of Ruiz’s failure to recall signing the 2011 agreement, Moss Bros. had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic.” Using the above authorities, Defendants have established the existence of an arbitration agreements as shown by the declaration of Steven Turnbull. (Vano Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Through her objections, Plaintiff challenges the authenticity of her signature on Exhibits A and B attached to Mr. Vano’s declaration. Mr.

“[I]f a plaintiff presented with a handwritten signature on an arbitration agreement is unable to allege the signature is inauthentic or forged, the plaintiff's failure to recall signing the agreement neither creates a factual dispute as to the signature's authenticity nor affords an independent basis to find that a contract was not formed.” (Ramirez v. Golden Queen Mining Co., LLC (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 821, 835, as modified (June 11, 2024).)

In the face of Ruiz’s failure to recall signing the 2011 agreement, Moss Bros. had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic.” Likewise, “[a] trial court ruling on a petition to compel arbitration must resolve the factual issues raised by the petition, not simply determine whether factual disputes exist.” (Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 938, 953-954).

As to Plaintiffs AB and CD ( 23STCV30523) CooperSurgical demurs to the entire complaint in case no. 23STCV30523, which states six causes of action, including strict products liability causes of action on a manufacturing defect, design defect and failure to warn theory, negligence, negligent failure to recall, and unjust enrichment.

As to Plaintiffs AB and CD ( 23STCV30523) CooperSurgical demurs to the entire complaint in case no. 23STCV30523, which states six causes of action, including strict products liability causes of action on a manufacturing defect, design defect and failure to warn theory, negligence, negligent failure to recall, and unjust enrichment.

As to Plaintiffs AB and CD ( 23STCV30523) CooperSurgical demurs to the entire complaint in case no. 23STCV30523, which states six causes of action, including strict products liability causes of action on a manufacturing defect, design defect and failure to warn theory, negligence, negligent failure to recall, and unjust enrichment.

As to Plaintiffs AB and CD ( 23STCV30523) CooperSurgical demurs to the entire complaint in case no. 23STCV30523, which states six causes of action, including strict products liability causes of action on a manufacturing defect, design defect and failure to warn theory, negligence, negligent failure to recall, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff alleges causes of action for medical malpractice, failure to warn, design defect, negligence, negligent failure to recall, breach of express and implied warranty, and negligent misrepresentation. Her claims are brought against Cook and defendant Stanley M. Batiste, MD. There is currently a multidistrict litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana regarding the same produce.

Failure to Warn, Negligent Failure to Recall/Retrofit – Second and Fourth Causes of Action Defendants contend that Wright Medical’s warnings were adequate as a matter of law, and that there is no evidence that Plaintiff’s surgeon—Dr. Penenberg—would have treated Plaintiff differently if he had been provided a different warning.

Although a plaintiff’s failure to recall use of a given product may show the absence of triable issues where the testimony demonstrates that the plaintiff is generally able to recall the products they worked with during that time frame (See Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1440–41), NCH presents no such context here. To obtain summary judgment, NCH must make a showing that plaintiff will be unable to prove its case by any means.

The complaint alleges strict products liability, negligence, failure to recall/retrofit, and premises liability for the rolling of a Genie S-85 telescopic boom causing fatal injuries to decedent Jamie Rubio on August 31, 2017. On May 15, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Defendant Knight-Calabasas, LLC d.b.a. Calabasas Country Club filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1-100 seeking indemnity, contribution, and apportionment of fault.

The complaint asserts four causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) strict liability products liability, (3) negligent failure to recall or retrofit product, and (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability. On August 12, 2025, Defendant Equipment Manufacturing Corporation filed an answer.

Issue No. 2 Duty/Failure to Recall In order to establish a viable negligence claim for failure to recall, Plaintiff must prove that: (1) That Sloan manufactured the water closet; (2) That Sloan knew or reasonably should have known that the water closet was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner; (3)That Sloan became aware of this defect after the water closet was sold; (4).

(2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846 (In the face of & failure to recall signing & had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic&.). Where a court has ordered arbitration, it shall stay the pending action, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate, or another earlier time, and the stay may be with respect to an issue that is severable. CCP §1281.4; Cruz v.

(Walmart) and Defendant The Clorox Company (Clorox), filed on 1/10/24, contains causes of action for: (1) Strict Liability Design Defect (against Walmart, Clorox and Does 1-25), (2) Negligence Failure to Recall (against Clorox and Does 1-25) and (3) Negligence (against Clorox, Walmart and Does 1-25).

Negligent Failure to Recall 6. Fraudulent Concealment 7. Violation of Californias False Advertising Law 8. Violation of Californias Unfair Competition Law 9. Fraud 10. Wrongful Death 11. Survival Action On January 14, 2020, Plaintiffs dismissed TMM California, without prejudice.

The FAC asserts seven causes of action: (1) general negligence, (2) premises liability, (3) negligent undertaking, (4) strict products liability design defect, (5) strict products liability failure to warn, (6) strict products liability manufacturing defect, and (7) negligent failure to recall/retrofit.

Although a plaintiff’s failure to recall use of a given product may show the absence of triable issues, the burden is on the moving party to show that the testimony demonstrates that the plaintiff is generally able to recall the products they worked with during that time frame, such that their recall would be of use to the trier of fact. (See Weber, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1440–41.)

(Irwin) and Applied Nutrition (Applied) for strict product liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn/negligent failure to recall, and loss of consortium. On November 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint against only Irwin. On December 7, 2021, Irwin filed its answer to the FAC. On November 2, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Paul J. Komyatte to be heard on April 28, 2022.

(TMM California), DWWTR, Inc. dba Toyota of Riverside (sued separately as DWWTR, Inc. and Toyota of Riverside) (DWWTR) and Does 1-100 for: Strict Products Liability Negligent Product Liability Negligence Breach of Warranty Negligent Failure to Recall Fraudulent Concealment Violation of Californias False Advertising Law Violation of Californias Unfair Competition Law Fraud Wrongful Death Survival Action On January 14, 2020, Plaintiffs dismissed TMM California, without prejudice.

Pak had a good memory in other cases, then his failure to recall in this case is suspicious and goes to his credibility. Dr. Paks dubious inability to recall facts related to Plaintiffs case does not justify changing the Courts prior ruling. The Court reasoned as follows in its minute order of October 23, 2025: These requests are overly broad in scope, would encompass testimony involving unrelated patients, and pose a substantial privacy concern even with redactions.

The FAC asserts seven causes of action: (1) general negligence, (2) premises liability, (3) negligent undertaking, (4) strict products liability design defect, (5) strict products liability failure to warn, (6) strict products liability manufacturing defect, and (7) negligent failure to recall/retrofit.

Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846, a plaintiff faced with an arbitration agreement similarly claimed not to recall signing the agreement, and the court of appeal held that this failure to recall placed the burden “of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic” back on the defendants. (Id. at p. 846.) The court finds that Defendants have adequately authenticated the arbitration agreement.

Defendant SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC (Samsung) demurs to Plaintiff ANDREW BAUTISTAs (Plaintiff) Third Amended Complaint on the grounds that the ninth cause of action (strict liability manufacturing defect), tenth cause of action (strict liability design defect), eleventh cause of action (negligence) and twelfth cause of action (failure to recall) fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

DISCUSSION Plaintiffs Michael Model and Soheila Model (Plaintiffs) move the court for an order permitting them to file a Second Amended Complaint to (1) strike (i) the 10th cause of action for negligent failure to recall, (ii) the 12th cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, (iii) various factual allegations, and (iv) the prayers for restitution and injunctive relief, and (2) supplement the factual allegations supporting the remaining causes of action.

Plaintiffs’ failure to recall signing their respective agreements is sufficient to shift the burden back to defendant. (Id. at 1054-55; Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 844.) “An … electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable.”

On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Asmodus, Inc., Bluebells Ranch LLC dba Bluebells Vape and Smoke, and Lithicore Tech LLC (collectively, Defendants), alleging causes of action for (1) Strict Liability Manufacturing Defect, (2) Strict Liability Design Defect, (3) Negligence, (4) Negligence Failure to Recall, (5) Strict Liability Manufacturing Defect, (6) Strict Liability Design Defect, (7) Negligence, and (8) Negligence.

On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (FAC) against Moving Defendants and Non-moving Defendant Helmet House, LLC, alleging seven causes of action: (1) strict liability- manufacturing defect; (2) strict liability- design defect; (3) negligence (I); (4) negligence (II); (5) negligence- failure to recall; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (7) Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Defendant demurs to the following claims brought against it: (5) negligence – design and manufacturing defect and (6) negligence – failure to recall / retrofit. Defendant demurs based on the failure to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action (due to the statute of limitations expiring) and on uncertainty. Defendant argues the statute of limitations has run on the negligence claims.

In the context of an electronic signature, a person’s failure to recall signing the agreement shifts the burden to authenticate the signature to the party seeking to enforce the agreement. (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Grp. (2014) 232 Cal. App. 4th 836, 846). (“In the face of Ruiz's failure to recall signing the 2011 agreement, Moss Bros. had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic, that is, it was what Moss Bros. claimed it was: “the act of” Ruiz.”)

A plaintiff’s failure to recall signing his or her agreement is sufficient to shift the burden back to Defendant. (Id. at 1054-55; Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 844.) “An … electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable.”

Plaintiffs insubstantial failure to recall does not sufficiently rebut Defendants substantial showing that Plaintiff signed the Agreement. For efficiency, the Court stays non-individual PAGA claims pending resolution of the facts of Plaintiffs individual claims. CONCLUSION The Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is GRANTED. The proceedings are stayed in their entirety pending further order of the Court.

(Walmart) and Defendant The Clorox Company (Clorox), filed on 1/10/24, contains causes of action for: (1) Strict Liability Design Defect (against Walmart, Clorox and Does 1-25), (2) Negligence Failure to Recall (against Clorox and Does 1-25) and (3) Negligence (against Clorox, Walmart and Does 1-25). On 5/30/24, Plaintiff served Clorox with Special Interrogatories, Set 5. (Eagan Decl., Ex.2). On 7/1/24, Clorox responded to the interrogatories with objections. ( Id ., Ex.3).

Prisma LLC (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 785, 793; Ruiz 232 Cal.App.4th at 846 (In the face of &[plaintiffs] failure to recall signing & [party moving for arbitration] had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic&.). See also Espejo v. So. Cal. Permanente Med.

(2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846 (In the face of & failure to recall signing & had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic&.). The relatively brief delay in bringing the motion, after the Answer and discovery, does not constitute a waiver of arbitration. "State law, like the FAA, reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements and requires close judicial scrutiny of waiver claims....

In the face of Ruiz’s failure to recall electronically signing the 2011 agreement, the fact the 2011 agreement had an electronic signature on it in the name of Ruiz, and a date and time stamp for the signature, was insufficient to support a finding that the electronic signature was, in fact, ‘the act of’ Ruiz.” (( Id. at p. 844 ); ( see also Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a) [“An electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.

On April 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) alleging causes of action for (1) Strict Liability Manufacturing Defect, (2) Strict Liability Design Defect, (3) Negligence, (4) Negligence Failure to Recall, (5) Strict Liability Manufacturing Defect, (6) Strict Liability Design Defect, (7) Negligence, and (8) Negligence. On April 8, 2025, Bluebells filed the instant motion to compel further responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, set two (RFPs).

The FAC asserts four causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) strict liability – products liability, (3) negligent failure to recall or retrofit product, and (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability. On July 7, 2026, this action was deemed related with Priority One Insurance v. Equipment Manufacturing Company, et al., Lo Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 26NWCV00452. This is a continuation.

Plaintiff filed the present action on January 27, 2023, asserting causes of action for: (1) strict liability - manufacturing defect; (2) strict liability- design defect; (3) negligence; (4) negligence - failure to recall; (5) breach of express warranty; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (7) Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), as well as a claim for punitive damages. (See AHM’s RJN 1, and Exhibit A thereto.)

Plaintiff filed the present action on January 27, 2023, asserting causes of action for: (1) strict liability - manufacturing defect; (2) strict liability- design defect; (3) negligence; (4) negligence - failure to recall; (5) breach of express warranty; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (7) Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), as well as a claim for punitive damages. (See AHM’s RJN 1, and Exhibit A thereto.)

Plaintiff filed the present action on January 27, 2023, asserting causes of action for: (1) strict liability - manufacturing defect; (2) strict liability- design defect; (3) negligence; (4) negligence - failure to recall; (5) breach of express warranty; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (7) Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), as well as a claim for punitive damages. (See AHM’s RJN 1, and Exhibit A thereto.)

Plaintiff filed the present action on January 27, 2023, asserting causes of action for: (1) strict liability - manufacturing defect; (2) strict liability- design defect; (3) negligence; (4) negligence - failure to recall; (5) breach of express warranty; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (7) Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), as well as a claim for punitive damages. (See AHM’s RJN 1, and Exhibit A thereto.)

Plaintiff filed the present action on January 27, 2023, asserting causes of action for: (1) strict liability - manufacturing defect; (2) strict liability- design defect; (3) negligence; (4) negligence - failure to recall; (5) breach of express warranty; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (7) Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), as well as a claim for punitive damages. (See AHM’s RJN 1, and Exhibit A thereto.)

Plaintiff filed the present action on January 27, 2023, asserting causes of action for: (1) strict liability - manufacturing defect; (2) strict liability- design defect; (3) negligence; (4) negligence - failure to recall; (5) breach of express warranty; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (7) Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), as well as a claim for punitive damages. (See AHM’s RJN 1, and Exhibit A thereto.)

Plaintiff filed the present action on January 27, 2023, asserting causes of action for: (1) strict liability - manufacturing defect; (2) strict liability- design defect; (3) negligence; (4) negligence - failure to recall; (5) breach of express warranty; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (7) Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), as well as a claim for punitive damages. (See AHM’s RJN 1, and Exhibit A thereto.)

In the face of Ruiz's failure to recall electronically signing the 2011 agreement, the fact the 2011 agreement had an electronic signature on it in the name of Ruiz, and a date and time stamp for the signature, was insufficient to support a finding that the electronic signature was, in fact, "the act of" Ruiz. (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a).)

In the face of [employee’s] failure to recall electronically signing the 2011 agreement, the fact the 2011 agreement had an electronic signature on it in the name of [employee], and a date and time stamp for the signature, was insufficient to support a finding that the electronic signature was, in fact, “the act of” [employee]. (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a).)

Huber, M.D., Beach District Surgery Center LP, and Coastal Ortho f/k/a Torrance Orthopaedic & Sports Medicine Group for (1) negligence, (2)-(5) strict products liability, (6) negligent products liability, (7) breach of express warranty, (8) breach of implied warranty, (9) medical malpractice, (10) negligent misrepresentation, and (11) negligent failure to recall. On September 10, 2020, plaintiff dismissed Beach District Surgery Center LP.

See, e.g., Ruiz , 232 Cal.App.4th at 846 (In the face of & failure to recall signing & had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic&.); and Espejo v. So. Cal. Permanente Med. Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1060 (defendants & met their initial burden by attaching to their petition a copy of the purported arbitration agreement bearing & electronic signature.

Based upon the discussion set forth above, the court finds that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages based on the allegations of intoxication, failure to recall who was driving, and plaintiff’s speculation that “it is quite probable that driving was literally ‘team effort’ by the defendants.” Complaint, Exemplary Damages Attachment, ¶ Ex-2.

The complaint alleges strict products liability, negligence, failure to recall/retrofit, and premises liability for the rolling of a Genie S-85 telescopic boom causing fatal injuries to decedent Jamie Rubio on August 31, 2017. On May 15, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Defendant Knight-Calabasas, LLC d.b.a. Calabasas Country Club filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1-100 seeking indemnity, contribution, and apportionment of fault.

However, [i]n the face of [a plaintiffs] failure to recall signing the 2011 agreement, [a defendant has] the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic[.] ( Id . at p. 846.) Chantira Insichienmay declares that Defendant uses a software called UKG UltiPro Solutions (UKG) to provide a portal for the submission of employment applications and the distribution of forms and policies to applicants and employees. (Insichienmay Decl. ¶ 5.)

If an employee denies signing, or even indicates a failure to recall electronically signing the agreement, the moving party has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature is authentic. ( Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846.)

In the face of Ruiz’s failure to recall signing the 2011 agreement, Moss Bros. had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic.” Defendant met its initial burden of establishing the existence of an arbitration agreement. Plaintiff, however, disputes that she signed this agreement.

The complaint alleges strict products liability, negligence, failure to recall/retrofit, and premises liability for the fatal falling of decedent Jamie Rubio from a Genie S-85 at Calabasas Country Club on August 31, 2017. On May 15, 2019, Defendant Knight-Calabasas, LLC dba Calabasas Country Club filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 100 seeking indemnity, contribution, and an apportionment of fault.

(Walmart) and Defendant The Clorox Company (Clorox) contains causes of action for: (1) Strict Liability Design Defect (against Clorox, Walmart and Does 1-25), (2) Negligence Failure to Recall (against Clorox and Does 1-25); (3) Negligence (against Clorox, Walmart and Does 1-25). On 8/31/23, Plaintiff electronically served Clorox with Special Interrogatories, Set 2, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set 3, making responses due on or before 10/3/23. (Lopez Decls., Exs.1-2).

In the face of Ruiz's failure to recall electronically signing the 2011 agreement, the fact the 2011 agreement had an electronic signature on it in the name of Ruiz, and a date and time stamp for the signature, was insufficient to support a finding that the electronic signature was, in fact, ‘the act of’ Ruiz. (Civ. Code §1633.9(a).) For the same reason, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the electronic signature was what Moss Bros. claimed it was: the electronic signature of Ruiz.

The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) strict liability – manufacturing defect, (2) strict liability – design defect, (3) negligence, (4) negligence – failure to recall, (5) breach of express warranty, (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (7) Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and (9) negligent repair. On 9/3/24, Plaintiff dismissed her third through eighth causes of action without prejudice.

The Hearing Officer found O’Connor’s testimony to be inconsistent and not credible because of her failure to recall the events of June 13, 2012. (Ibid.) On October 2, 2012, O’Connor filed this petition for writ of mandate to set aside the determination of the DMV. O’Connor argues that the evidence in the administrative record does not support the finding that O’Connor refused to complete a chemical test because O’Connor was confused and did not understand the admonition.

His failure to recall is likely caused by a traumatic brain injury sustained in 2019. He was placed on disability in 2021 and never returned to active duty before being medically retired in 2024. (Id., pp. 54:13-56:3.) He testify that Deputy Welch would have been the one who would have provided license plate information over the radio, and would have been responsible for anything that happened over the computer and the radio. (Id., pp. 31:15-32:2.)

Defendants’ joint demurrer to plaintiff’s sixth cause of action: negligent product liability-failure to recall/retrofit against Jack’s Tire & Oil of California, Inc., Jack’s Tire & Oil Management Company, Inc., Michelin Retread Technologies, Inc. is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND on the ground that there is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (c); Ruff I ninth cause of action; Ruff II sixth cause of action.)

Accordingly, for the purpose of a demurrer, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a cause of action for negligence and for negligent failure to recall.

“In the face of Ruiz's failure to recall electronically signing the 2011 agreement, the fact the 2011 agreement had an electronic signature on it in the name of Ruiz, and a date and time stamp for the signature, was insufficient to support a finding that the electronic signature was, in fact, ‘the act of’ Ruiz. For the same reason, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the electronic signature was what Moss Bros. claimed it was: the electronic signature of Ruiz.

The court concluded that in the face of Ruiz's failure to recall electronically signing the 2011 agreement, the fact the 2011 agreement had an electronic signature on it in the name of Ruiz, and a date and time stamp for the signature, was insufficient to support a finding that the electronic signature was, in fact, the act of Ruiz. ( Id .; cf. Espejo v.

Because Plaintiff does not dispute the authenticity of his signature on the TCA, his failure to recall signing it is immaterial. [1] Defendant has proven that an arbitration agreement exists covering the claims at issue. II. Unconscionability Unconscionability has both a procedural and a substantive element. ( Aron v. U-Haul Co. of California (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 796, 808.) Both elements must be present for a court to invalidate a contract or clause. ( Ibid .)

Plaintiff vaguely refers to previous accidents and contrasts Defendant’s failure to recall their bicycles to the actions of Lyft and Uber. But these allegations do not show advance knowledge and conscious disregard or extreme indifference to the rights of others. There are no specific facts describing these associated accidents and there is no indication that Lyft and Uber’s bicycles are even the same as the ones used by Defendant or involved in this case.

As against Defendant General Motors (“GM”), Plaintiffs allege causes of action for strict products liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn/negligent failure to recall, and punitive damages based on the subject suburban containing defective parts. TR: GRANT Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted. (Evid. Code § 452.) Defendant moves the Court for a protective order.

Negligence Failure to Recall 6. Breach of Express Warranty 7. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability 8. Consumer Legal Remedies Act 9. Loss of Consortium 10. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendant Honda filed the present demurrer on April 4, 2025. Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 11, 2025. Defendant filed a reply on September 17, 2025. Analysis: I.

On January 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their complaint alleging nine (9) causes of action: 1) strict liability – manufacturing defect; 2) strict liability - design defect; 3) negligence; 4) negligence – failure to recall; 5) breach of express warranty; 6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; 7) Consumer Legal Remedies Act; 8) loss of consortium; and 9) negligence. Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

In the face of [employees] failure to recall electronically signing the 2011 agreement, the fact the 2011 agreement had an electronic signature on it in the name of [employee], and a date and time stamp for the signature, was insufficient to support a finding that the electronic signature was, in fact, the act of [employee]. (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a).)

Plaintiffs deposition testimony only states that Plaintiff could not recall if any materials were present but Plaintiffs failure to recall is evidence that Plaintiff does not have evidence to dispute PDDF 6. The deposition testimony shows that Plaintiff cannot affirmatively testify that materials were present to obscure the defect.

Plaintiffs failure to recall signing the agreement must be given little weight. Lacking is any firm denial that Plaintiff did not sign the Arbitration Agreement. Based on a preponderance of the evidence and the totality of the circumstances, this court finds that Defendants have met their burden to establish with admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. (Gamboa, supra, 72 Cal. App. 5th at 165.) C.

Zemba maintains that Wright’s failure to recall which lawyer assisted him in preparing the false notice is a weak, unpersuasive defense. Zemba asserts Patients Corp.’s fraud on the City extends beyond the false notice to include fraudulent amendments to the corporation’s articles, false stock certificates, and false loan and sale agreements, all prepared by Katcho.

(Walmart) and Defendant The Clorox Company (Clorox), filed on 1/10/24, contains causes of action for: (1) Strict Liability Design Defect (against Walmart, Clorox and Does 1-25), (2) Negligence Failure to Recall (against Clorox and Does 1-25) and (3) Negligence (against Clorox, Walmart and Does 1-25). On 1/10/24, Plaintiff served a Notice of Deposition to the Person Most Qualified (PMQ) for Clorox. (Manetti Decl. ¶2, Ex.1).

In the face of Ruiz's failure to recall electronically signing the 2011 agreement, the fact the 2011 agreement had an electronic signature on it in the name of Ruiz, and a date and time stamp for the signature, was insufficient to support a finding that the electronic signature was, in fact, the act of Ruiz. (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a).)

If an employee denies signing, or even indicates a failure to recall electronically signing the agreement, the moving party has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature is authentic. ( Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846.)

(2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846 [In the face of [employee's] failure to recall signing the 2011 agreement, [employer] had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic].) Accordingly, for the third step, Defendants must establish with admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement between the parties by a preponderance of the evidence. ( Gamboa , supra , 88 Cal.App.4th at 219.)

The complaint asserts seven causes of action: (1) general negligence, (2) premises liability, (3) negligent undertaking, (4) strict products liability design defect, (5) strict products liability failure to warn, (6) strict products liability manufacturing defect, and (7) negligent failure to recall/retrofit. On October 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed Amendments to Complaint naming Nowlin Fence as Doe 1 and Jonathan Lau as Doe 1.

In the face of [employees] failure to recall electronically signing the 2011 agreement, the fact the 2011 agreement had an electronic signature on it in the name of [employee], and a date and time stamp for the signature, was insufficient to support a finding that the electronic signature was, in fact, the act of [employee]. (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a).)

Defendant demurs to the following claims brought against it: (5) breach of express warranty, (6) negligence – design and manufacturing defect and (7) negligence – failure to recall / retrofit. Defendants demurs based on the failure to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action (due to the statute of limitations expiring) and on uncertainty.