SUBJECT: Motion to strike
Moving Party: Defendant Sport Chalet, Inc.
Resp. Party: Plaintiff Massimo Millauro
The motion to strike is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court grants the motion to strike from the Second Amended Complaint
¶ 17, p.4:13-27
¶ 18
¶ 19
and the word “gross” from paragraphs 20–26.
The Court denies the motion to strike the entirety of the complaint.
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice of Judge Osorio’s ruling of 4/26/17 is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452.) However, “taking judicial notice of the truth of a judge’s factual finding, even after a contested adversary hearing, is ‘tantamount to taking judicial notice that the judge's factual finding must necessarily have been correct and that the judge is therefore infallible. We resist the temptation to do so.’” (Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 121 quoting Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1568.)
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:
Plaintiff is correct that defendant ha
Hearing Date
January 11, 2018
Type
Prdct Liablty (not asbes,tox,envir (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SUBJECT: Motion to strike
Moving Party: Defendant Sport Chalet, Inc.
Resp. Party: Plaintiff Massimo Millauro
The motion to strike is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court grants the motion to strike from the Second Amended Complaint
¶ 17, p.4:13-27
¶ 18
¶ 19
and the word “gross” from paragraphs 20–26.
The Court denies the motion to strike the entirety of the complaint.
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice of Judge Osorio’s ruling of 4/26/17 is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452.) However, “taking judicial notice of the truth of a judge’s factual finding, even after a contested adversary hearing, is ‘tantamount to taking judicial notice that the judge's factual finding must necessarily have been correct and that the judge is therefore infallible. We resist the temptation to do so.’” (Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 121 quoting Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1568.)
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:
Plaintiff is correct that defendant ha