Motion to Compel Production; Ex Parte Application
and attendance at court did not require outof-town travel. Therefore, $330.55 in “Food & Parking” is stricken from Plaintiff’s recoverable costs.
It is unclear what “anticipated” costs Plaintiff seeks in connection with the attorney fee motion and motion to tax costs. Therefore, $300 in “anticipated” costs is stricken from Plaintiff’s recoverable costs.
Accordingly, the request to strike Item 15 costs in the amount of $1,595.73 is GRANTED.
Based on the foregoing, the Court taxes a total of $1,595.73 in costs and awards Plaintiff $48,336.62.
Moving Party shall give notice.
4 Doe vs. Unruly Agency LLC
2023-01345140 1. Motion to Compel Production 2. Ex Parte Application
Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Motion to Compel Defendant Unruly Agency LLC to Produce Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310.)
Within 30 days of this ruling, Defendant Unruly Agency LLC shall produce further verified responses without objection to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Request Nos. 9-11 and 13-25. Within 45 days of this ruling, Defendant Unruly Agency LLC shall produce all responsive documents identified in their supplemental responses. To the extent any document is withheld on the basis of a claim of privilege, Defendant Unruly Agency LLC shall provide a privilege log that complies with the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §2031.240, subd. (c).
Defendant shall pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,515 within 45 days of this ruling.
***All lead counsel are ordered to appear for the Ex Parte Application. Refer to ROA 426.***
Plaintiff shall provide notice.
6 Mitchell vs. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
2022-01265002 1. Demurrer to Amended Complaint 2. Motion for Bifurcation 3. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
1. Demurrer to Amended Complaint
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendants Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, erroneously named as Deutsche Bank Trust Company America, and Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp.’s demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint [SAC] is SUSTAINED in its entirety, with leave to amend, on grounds of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)
Moving defendants’ request for judicial notice of Ex. A to the Morris Decl. is GRANTED, limited to the fact of recordation, but not the truth of its contents. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264-265 [judicial notice of recorded documents]; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1117 [“the fact a court may take judicial notice of a recorded deed, or similar document, does not mean it may take judicial notice of factual matters stated therein”].) The remainder of moving parties’ request for judicial notice, as well as