“A hostile work environment sexual harassment claim requires a plaintiff employee to show:
Lewis v. City of Benicia (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1524.
The Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) makes it unlawful for an employer to “harass an employee because of the employee’s ‘sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression,... [or] sexual orientation.’” Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1235-36 (quoting Govt. Code, § 12940(j)(1)).
Plaintiffs contend they are subject to the following interim harm: (1) the requirement that by 10/10/16 they submit a time consuming and burdensome new application, which applications may be denied for any number of new and trivial reasons; (2) the risk of Notices of Violation ("NOV") that can also be used to revoke a STR permit for minor violations, all of which can be criminally prosecuted and punished; (3) the loss of goodwill and damage to relations with renters, fewer bookings, and the potential need to
Sep 29, 2030
Orange County, CA
Given that CCP § 1263.510 mandates compensation for lost goodwill for the owner of a business conducted on the property taken, the Court will not preclude such recovery in the absence of express exclusionary language in the lease. That being said, it is not clear that SARVS necessarily will be eligible for such compensation.
Apr 25, 2026
Orange County, CA
Plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence in opposition to that motion showing the existence of triable issues of fact as to the application of equitable estoppel, and have produced evidence sufficient to show triable issues of material fact as to equitable estoppel in opposition to the current motion as well. (Opp. SSUF ¶422.)
Apr 25, 2026
Orange County, CA
The peremptory writ further commands that Respondents shall reconsider the Permit in light of the decision of this Court dated April 18, 2019. 3. Nothing in this judgment or the writ shall limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in Respondents. 4. Petitioners shall recover their costs in this proceeding in the amount of $_____.
Jun 20, 2021
Orange County, CA
Edwards The pro hac vice applications of Adam A. Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason T. Dennett, Kim D. Stephens, and Paul C. Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3).
Jun 20, 2021
Orange County, CA
AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented. At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the South Central District, Compton, the Honorable Maurice Leiter, Judge presiding in Department A, for all purposes except trial.
Oct 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
. & 16010, 16020, and 16030 Phoenix Drive” in “Los Angeles” and that the stated base rent of $43,153.00, as per Paragraph 1.5 of the parties’ agreement, applied to the entirety of the foregoing premises. The court notes that Plaintiff’s related case, Case No. 19PSCV00905, pertains to 16030 Phoenix Drive, City of Industry, CA, 91745 only.
Oct 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges that on or around February 18, 2015, Plaintiff and Zaragoza entered into another agreement (“Agreement #2”), wherein Plaintiff agreed to lend Zaragoza $30,000.00 in cash; in return, Zaragoza agreed to repay Plaintiff $3,000.00/month plus 2% of the principal amount owed per month ($600.00) for ten months starting in March 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Zaragoza has only paid $11,970.00 on Agreement #2.
Sep 24, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Upon receipt of the Drafts, Plaintiff believed as per the Draft that it was to pay the price agreed upon for the vehicle, as well as the broker fee, to Round Table and that Round Table, as the broker, would be responsible for paying the selling dealer. On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff issued 2 checks made payable to Round Table, one for $24,750.00 (i.e., for the vehicle in Draft No. 001495) and the other for $11,550.00 (i.e., for the vehicle in Draft No. 001496.)
Sep 23, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented. At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the Southeast District, Norwalk, the Honorable Margaret Miller Bernal, Judge presiding in Department F, for further reassignment.
Sep 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented. At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the Northwest District, Van Nuys, the Honorable H. Cotton, Judge presiding in Department A, for further reassignment.
Aug 31, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented. At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the South District, Long Beach, the Honorable Mark C. Kim, Judge presiding in Department S27, for all purposes except trial.
Aug 27, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20.
Aug 18, 2020
Family Law
Conservatorship
Ventura County, CA
The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20.
Aug 18, 2020
Family Law
Conservatorship
Ventura County, CA
Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) No Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) N/A Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) N/A __ _______ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.)
Aug 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
I took the time to look at a calendar and compare each day with my recollection of time worked and records including emails, text messages, and various schedules, attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A,’ to calculate the number of hours that I worked in excess of 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week.” (Plaintiff’s Supplemental Decl., ¶6.) Much of Exhibit A, however, is comprised of communications made in a foreign language. No translation has been provided. (See California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1113.)
Aug 14, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Five Bulls, Anacleto and Does 1-5 for: Breach of Written Agreement Breach of Written Guaranty Money Had and Received Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Common Count Fraud Constructive Trust Unfair Business Practices Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked in Violation of Labor Code § 1198 On July 6, 2020, Five Bulls’ and Anacleto’s defaults were entered.
Aug 12, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Merits On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a SAC, asserting causes of action against Emanate for (1) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations [5 counts], (2) Inducing Breach of Contract [3 counts], (3) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations [5 counts], (4) Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., (5) Violation of Cartwright Act, Business & Professions Code Section 16700, et seq., (6) Breach of Written Contract and (7) Aiding
Aug 06, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Between March 2018 and September 1, 2018, Plaintiff invested over $150,000.00 in the business. On or about August 22, 2018, Plaintiff and E. Yoo agreed to amend the Statement of Information for CJME, Inc. (“CJME”), which E. Yoo had incorporated on November 13, 2017. Since CJME was not actively involved in business, Plaintiff and E. Yoo agreed that CJME would be used in operation of the Mugs. In amending CJME, E. Yoo remained as the CEO while Plaintiff was named as its CFO and Secretary.
Aug 06, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Since plaintiff has not challenged the reasonableness of the fees requested, the Court will award defendant attorneys fees in the amount of $7,350. The Clerk will amend the judgment to add attorneys’ fees in that amount and costs in the amount of $391.18 requested in the unchallenged Memorandum of Cost
Aug 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
In or around March 2018, Plaintiff met Thomas Chen (“Chen”). Chen advised Plaintiff that he had been operating a successful business, Tissuesco Group (“Tissuesco”), for many years and could assist Plaintiff to open a business and obtain a visa. On or around March 24, 2018, the parties signed a contract, in which Plaintiff agreed to invest $120,000.00 to Tissuesco and, in return, Tissuesco would open, operate and manage a company for Plaintiff and assist Plaintiff in applying for an L-1 visa.
Jul 31, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
The declaration lacks the requisite language for admissibility (ie: identification of the place of signing and/or a statement providing “under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California…” if signed outside of California.) To be admissible, a declaration made out-of-state for use in California must state that the statements were made under penalty of California law in material compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5. Kulshrestha v.
Jul 30, 2020
Collections
Promisory Note
Los Angeles County, CA
AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented. At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the Central District, Los Angeles, the Honorable M. Linfield, Judge presiding in Department 34, for all purposes except trial.
Jul 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Final Distribution No appearances required. Petition is recommended for approval.
Jul 29, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
The causes of action in the FAC include (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) breach of contract; (3) quiet title/cancellation of instrument; (4) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) violations of Business and Professions Code sections 12700 et seq.; (6) escrow negligence; (7) fraud; (8) civil conspiracy; and (9) declaratory relief.
Jul 29, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
