Preview
V ”DWMJNM
l
f/l\
L E D
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNM
JEFFREY V. DUNN, Bar No. 13 1926 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
jeffrey.dunn@bbklaw.com SAN BERNARDINO DlSTRiCT
DANIEL L. RICHARDS, Bar No. 3 15552
daniel.richards@bbklaw.com MAR 2 5 2022
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
MOWM
#UJN
18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1000
Irvine, California 926 1 2 BY
Telephone: (949) 263-2600 éCOFuA M. PORTHJLO. DEPUTY
Facsimile: (949) 260-0972
Attorneys for Defendant
Local Agency Formation Commission for San EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT
\OWQQUI
Bernardino County T0 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11
1000
C.O.M.E.T. [“COMMUNITY OF MENTONE Case No. CIVDS 1906437
LLP
Sun's
92612
12 EMPOWERED TOGETHER”], Judge: Hon. Donald R. Alvarez
LAW
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
KIuEGER
AT
13 Plaintiff,
& Annmns
VoNKARMANAVENUE.
IRVINn,CALImRNIA
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
BEST
14 V. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
BEST RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
181m
15 CITY OF REDLANDS, CA; SAN INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) T0
BERNARDINO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY PLAINTIFF C.O.M.E.T.
16 FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO), [“COMMUNITY OF MENTONE
CALAFCO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED
,
EMPOWERED TOGETHER”]
17 IN THE MATTER OF ANNEMTIONS OF
MENTONE TERRITORY and DOES 1 Date: June 2, 2022
18 through 2-500, inclusive, Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept. : $23
19 Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14141 .00030\34841 254.1
-1-
SEPARATE STATEMENT 1N SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) TO PLAINTIFF C.O.M.E.T.
SEPARATE STATEMENT 0F DISPUTED REQUESTS AND RESPONSES
N Defendant, Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County
(“Defendant”) hereby submits the following Separate Statement in support of their Motion to
Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff C.O.M.E.T.
[“COMMUNITY OF MENTONE EMPOWERED TOGETPER’] in accordance with Rule of
©WQ®UI$UJ
Court 3. 1345.
INTRODUCTION AND APPENDIX
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
IDENTIFY all PERSONS whom YOU claim to be past or current member of COMET.
10
11 (As used in these interrogatories, “YOU,” “YOUR” or “COMET” refers to Plaintiff
1000
Community of Mentone Empowered
LLP
Surra 12 Together, and any agents, representatives, attorneys,
92612
LAW
KRIEGER
AVENUE.
AT
CALImRNIA
13 principals, employees, and any other PERSON acting on its behalf.
& Ammns
KARMAN
BEST
VON
IRVINE,
14 “IDENTIFY” means, in relation to a person or entity, to provide the person or entity’s full
BEST
1810]
15 name, last known telephone number(s), email address, and last lmown address, including city,
16 state and zip code. “IDENTIFY” means, in relation to documents and/or information, to provide
17 the name of the document, the date of the document, the type of the document, the author and any
18 recipients of the document, and who is in possession of the document.
19 “PERSON” and “PERSONS” shall mean any natural person, firm, association,
20 organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation or public entity.)
21 RESPONSE T0 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
22 Objection: Irrelevant and not calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence
23 because COMET represents not just its members but all Mentone residents and property owners;
24 past members are particularly irrelevant. Further objects on the bases of 1) asked and answered
25 abundantly elsewhere in propounding party’s discovery requests; 2) violates right of privacy of
26 the Mentone residents and property owners whom COMET represents as class plaintiff. Further
27 object: impermissibly compound. Misstates the TAC and assumes facts not in evidence: Mentone
“
28 does not claim any persons “to be past or current members of COMET. COMET is not required
- 2 -
14l41.00030\34841254.1
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) TO PLAINTIFF C.O.M.E.T.
Related Content
in San Bernardino County
Ruling
FCS058487 - DAILEY, SHARON VS. SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF (DMS)
Jul 26, 2024 |
FCS058487
FCS058487
Motion for Leave to Amend
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff has failed to
file a proof of service demonstrating proper and timely service of the motion papers on
Defendants.
Join ZoomGov Meeting
https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1602210102?pwd=emlhR29SczExam56NFFqWHFvSitmZz09
Meeting ID: 160 221 0102
Passcode: 650928
One tap mobile
+16692545252,,1602210102#,,,,*650928# US (San Jose)
+16692161590,,1602210102#,,,,*650928# US (San Jose)
Ruling
Stephen Siefke vs Jimmy Dutra, Jr
Jul 25, 2024 |
22CV02174
22CV02174
SIEFKE v. DUTRA
DEFENDANT DUTRA’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET
THREE; FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; AND SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR
This case involves allegations of child sexual abuse by defendant. According to the
complaint, in the summer of 2005, plaintiff, then 12 years old, vacationed with defendant, then
30 years old, and his parents, in Southern California. It was during this trip that plaintiff alleges
he was molested by defendant.
Trial is set to begin on September 3, 2024. These motions were set on shortened time.
The motion is granted in part and denied in part, as discussed in detail below.
Defendant seeks to compel further responses to request for production of documents, set
three; special interrogatories, set four; and form interrogatories, set one.
Request for production, set three
Ruling
NORIEGA vs AGUILAR
Jul 22, 2024 |
CVRI2303215
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT
AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO SECTION CCP §
473(B) ON COMPLAINT FOR OTHER
PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY
CVRI2303215 NORIEGA VS AGUILAR DAMAGE/WRONGFUL DEATH TORT
(OVER $25,000) OF NORMA
ANGELICA NORIEGA BY GIOVANNY
AGUILAR, NANCY GONZALEZ, VILMA
AGUILAR, GIO'S PIZZERIA,
RESTORATION AGAPE
Tentative Ruling: Grant the motion for relief from default under the attorney-affidavit
provisions of C.C.P. §473(b).
4.
DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF
MERINO VS GENERAL
CVRI2305536 CONTRACT/WARRANTY (OVER
MOTORS, LLC
$25,000) OF HECTOR MERINO BY
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
Tentative Ruling: Continue the hearing to August 8, 2024 at 8:30AM. Defendant failed to
satisfy its obligation to meet and confer in person or by telephone with Plaintiff prior to
filing the demurrer and motion to strike portions of the First Amended Complaint (FAC.)
Moving party may not waive the requirements set forth in CCP § 430.41 and § 435.5.
Moving Defendant is ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff by telephone or in
person for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would
resolve the objections raised in the demurrer and motion to strike. As part of the meet
and confer process, Defendant shall identify with legal support the basis of the alleged
deficiencies in the subject pleadings. Plaintiff shall provide legal support for his position
that the pleadings are legally sufficient or, in the alternative, how they may be further
amended to cure any legal insufficiencies.
After meeting and conferring, Defendant shall, 10 days before the continued
hearing date, set above do one of the following:
(1) vacate the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike;
(2) file with the Court a declaration stating the parties have agreed that Plaintiff will file
an amended pleading/claim for damages before the date set forth above; or
(3) file with the court a declaration stating the means by which the parties met and
conferred and identifying the specific objections in the demurrer, and supporting
memorandum of points and authorities that the parties were unable to resolve.
The Court will not accept further briefing.
5.
MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT ON
1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
MERINO VS GENERAL
CVRI2305536 BREACH OF CONTRACT/WARRANTY
MOTORS, LLC
(OVER $25,000) OF HECTOR MERINO
BY GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
Tentative Ruling: Same as above.
Ruling
MUGIHIKO MORIJIRI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS 24 CMN LLC, A BUSINESS ENTITY, EXACT FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.
Jul 29, 2024 |
23STCV20959
Case Number:
23STCV20959
Hearing Date:
July 29, 2024
Dept:
53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles Central District
Department 53
mugihiko morijiri
, et al.;
Plaintiffs
,
vs.
24 cmn llc
, et al.;
Defendants
.
Case No.:
23STCV20959
Hearing Date:
July 29, 2024
Time:
10:00 a.m.
[tentative] Order
RE:
defendants motion to strike portions of complaint
MOVING PARTIES:
Defendants 24 CMN, LLC and CYN, LLC
RESPONDING PARTIES:
Plaintiffs
Mugihiko Morijiri, Keiko Morijiri, and Zion Morijiri and Ewan Morijiri, by and through their guardian ad litem, Keiko Morijiri
Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint
The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.
DISCUSSION
Defendants 24 CMN, LLC and CYN, LLC (Defendants) move the court for an order striking the prayer for punitive damages (Compl., Prayer, p. 23:20) and related allegations (Compl., ¶¶ 117, 161, 172
[1]
) in the Complaint filed by plaintiffs Mugihiko Morijiri, Keiko Morijiri, and Zion Morijiri and Ewan Morijiri, by and through their guardian ad litem, Keiko Morijiri (Plaintiffs).
The court grants Defendants motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages and related allegations because Plaintiffs have not alleged facts establishing (1) Defendants are guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, and (2) advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification, or act of oppression, fraud, or malice on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 436; Civ. Code, § 3294, subds. (a), (b).)
The court finds that the allegations that Ariana Javaheri, the property supervisor and managing agent of Defendants, informed Plaintiffs that the dark staining on their wall was not mold but mildew and advised Plaintiffs that they would have to pay for the mold test if the results were negative (Compl., ¶¶ 21-23) do not show that Defendants (1) engaged in conduct intended to cause injury to Plaintiffs or despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of Plaintiffs, or (2) engaged in despicable conduct subjecting Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights.
(Civ. Code, § 3294, subds. (c)(1) [defining malice], (c)(2) [defining oppression].)
Moreover, while the court acknowledges that Plaintiffs have also alleged that plaintiff Ewan Morijiri was diagnosed with leukemia, is immunocompromised, and was advised not to reside in a premises with mold because it would be injurious and possibly fatal (Compl., ¶ 23), Plaintiffs did not allege facts establishing that Defendants knew of this risk, such that Ariana Javaheris conduct may be considered malicious or oppressive.
ORDER
The court grants defendants CMN, LLC and CYN, LLCs motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages and paragraphs 117, 161, and 172 of plaintiffs Mugihiko Morijiri, Keiko Morijiri, and Zion Morijiri and Ewan Morijiri, by and through their guardian ad litem, Keiko Morijiris Complaint in this action.
The court grants plaintiffs Mugihiko Morijiri, Keiko Morijiri, and Zion Morijiri and Ewan Morijiri, by and through their guardian ad litem, Keiko Morijiri 20 days leave to file a First Amended Complaint that cures the defects set forth in this ruling.
The court orders defendants CMN, LLC and CYN, LLC to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
July 29, 2024
_____________________________
Robert B. Broadbelt III
Judge of the Superior Court
[1]
The court notes that the notice of motion erroneously states this allegation is in paragraph 171.
(Notice of Mot., p. 2, ¶ 3.)
Ruling
PARKER vs SAHARA DENTAL
Jul 22, 2024 |
CVSW2401629
PARKER VS JAMAL DENTAL MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS
CVSW2401629
CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR KIMBERLY A. PARKER
Tentative Ruling: GRANT and Approve the Proposed Order.
Ruling
CHAUDHRY vs SHARMA, D.D.S
Jul 23, 2024 |
CVRI2202087
MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING
CHAUDHRY VS SHARMA,
CVRI2202087 PLAINTIFF TO POST AN
D.D.S
UNDERTAKING
Tentative Ruling: Appearances required.
Ruling
Henao, Nicole vs. Lawrie, Justin Harris et al
Aug 05, 2024 |
S-CV-0051949
S-CV-0051949 Henao, Nicole vs. Lawrie, Justin Harris et al
** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouraged
Appearance required. Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading,
default or dismissal as to Defendant(s): Lawrie, Justin Harris; Lawrie, Michelle
Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Lawrie, Justin
Harris; Lawrie, Michelle
Ruling
SIU vs SIU, et al.
Jul 25, 2024 |
Civil Unlimited (Other Non-Personal Injury/Pro...) |
21CV000063
21CV000063: SIU vs SIU, et al.
07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike First and Fourth Causes of Action; filed by Kuai
Cheong Siu (Defendant) + in Department 25
Tentative Ruling - 07/24/2024 Jenna Whitman
The Hearing on Motion to Strike First and Fourth Causes of Action; filed by Kuai Cheong Siu
(Defendant) + scheduled for 07/25/2024 is continued to 08/22/2024 at 03:00 PM in Department
25 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse .
The Hearing on Demurrer DEMURRER TO FIRST, SECOND, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH,
SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, AND TENTH CAUSES OF ACTION IN FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT; filed by Kuai Cheong Siu (Defendant) + scheduled for 07/25/2024 is continued
to 08/22/2024 at 03:00 PM in Department 25 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse .
The Hearing on Motion - Other Joinder; filed by Roberto's Inc. (Defendant) scheduled for
07/25/2024 is continued to 08/22/2024 at 03:00 PM in Department 25 at Rene C. Davidson
Courthouse .
Preview
V ”DWMJNM l f/l\ L E D SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNM JEFFREY V. DUNN, Bar No. 13 1926 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO jeffrey.dunn@bbklaw.com SAN BERNARDINO DlSTRiCT DANIEL L. RICHARDS, Bar No. 3 15552 daniel.richards@bbklaw.com MAR 2 5 2022 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP MOWM #UJN 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1000 Irvine, California 926 1 2 BY Telephone: (949) 263-2600 éCOFuA M. PORTHJLO. DEPUTY Facsimile: (949) 260-0972 Attorneys for Defendant Local Agency Formation Commission for San EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT \OWQQUI Bernardino County T0 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 1000 C.O.M.E.T. [“COMMUNITY OF MENTONE Case No. CIVDS 1906437 LLP Sun's 92612 12 EMPOWERED TOGETHER”], Judge: Hon. Donald R. Alvarez LAW SEPARATE STATEMENT IN KIuEGER AT 13 Plaintiff, & Annmns VoNKARMANAVENUE. IRVINn,CALImRNIA SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S BEST 14 V. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER BEST RESPONSES TO SPECIAL 181m 15 CITY OF REDLANDS, CA; SAN INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) T0 BERNARDINO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY PLAINTIFF C.O.M.E.T. 16 FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO), [“COMMUNITY OF MENTONE CALAFCO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED , EMPOWERED TOGETHER”] 17 IN THE MATTER OF ANNEMTIONS OF MENTONE TERRITORY and DOES 1 Date: June 2, 2022 18 through 2-500, inclusive, Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept. : $23 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14141 .00030\34841 254.1 -1- SEPARATE STATEMENT 1N SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) TO PLAINTIFF C.O.M.E.T. SEPARATE STATEMENT 0F DISPUTED REQUESTS AND RESPONSES N Defendant, Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County (“Defendant”) hereby submits the following Separate Statement in support of their Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff C.O.M.E.T. [“COMMUNITY OF MENTONE EMPOWERED TOGETPER’] in accordance with Rule of ©WQ®UI$UJ Court 3. 1345. INTRODUCTION AND APPENDIX SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: IDENTIFY all PERSONS whom YOU claim to be past or current member of COMET. 10 11 (As used in these interrogatories, “YOU,” “YOUR” or “COMET” refers to Plaintiff 1000 Community of Mentone Empowered LLP Surra 12 Together, and any agents, representatives, attorneys, 92612 LAW KRIEGER AVENUE. AT CALImRNIA 13 principals, employees, and any other PERSON acting on its behalf. & Ammns KARMAN BEST VON IRVINE, 14 “IDENTIFY” means, in relation to a person or entity, to provide the person or entity’s full BEST 1810] 15 name, last known telephone number(s), email address, and last lmown address, including city, 16 state and zip code. “IDENTIFY” means, in relation to documents and/or information, to provide 17 the name of the document, the date of the document, the type of the document, the author and any 18 recipients of the document, and who is in possession of the document. 19 “PERSON” and “PERSONS” shall mean any natural person, firm, association, 20 organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation or public entity.) 21 RESPONSE T0 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 22 Objection: Irrelevant and not calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence 23 because COMET represents not just its members but all Mentone residents and property owners; 24 past members are particularly irrelevant. Further objects on the bases of 1) asked and answered 25 abundantly elsewhere in propounding party’s discovery requests; 2) violates right of privacy of 26 the Mentone residents and property owners whom COMET represents as class plaintiff. Further 27 object: impermissibly compound. Misstates the TAC and assumes facts not in evidence: Mentone “ 28 does not claim any persons “to be past or current members of COMET. COMET is not required - 2 - 14l41.00030\34841254.1 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) TO PLAINTIFF C.O.M.E.T.