Motion to seal
relate to the placement of a restocking cart or procedures/policies relating thereto. Further, plaintiff has provided no evidence as to why the confidential designation should be lifted when the protective order allows plaintiff to use the documents at depositions, with experts and at trial.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED and documents designated CHEDRAUI 0030-0042 shall remain confidential pursuant to the terms of the protective order at ROA 51.
Defendant is ordered to give notice. 6 Catanzarite v. Cont. to 8/31. City of Newport Beach 7 Twining v. Cont. to 8/10. Tarvin 8 Vivian v. Before the Court is an unopposed motion for leave to file a cross- MHCC, Inc. complaint filed by defendant Affordable Coast Glass, Inc. (Defendant) As set forth more fully below, the motion is GRANTED.
A party may apply to the court for leave to file a compulsory and/or permissive cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 426.50, § 428.50, subd. (c).) A cross- complaint is compulsory if the cause of action against the plaintiff “arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in the complaint.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 426.10, subd. (c).) In addition, a defendant can cross-complain against a codefendant or third party if the cause of action asserted arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences set forth in the complaint. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 428.10, subd. (c).)
Here, the proposed cross-complaint contains causes of action arising out of the same series or occurrences as the causes of action set forth in the the complaint. (Declaration of Sean Paden, Ex. A.) The Court finds granting leave to file the cross-complaint is in the interest of justice.
Counsel for Defendant shall provide notice of this ruling. 9 Black v. Mercy O/C House Living Center 10 Objective Before the Court is a motion by plaintiff Objective Standard Institute Standard to seal portions of its evidentiary objections (ROA 46), the Institute v. declaration of Annie Vinther Sanz (ROA 52) and the declaration of Barney et. al. Jonathan D. Dykstra (ROA 140). For the reasons set forth below, the unopposed motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).)
The Court finds an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the records at issue, as the materials to be
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?”
sealed contain confidential attorney-client privileged information, and a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records at issue are not sealed. Further, the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and there are no less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest in protecting the information aside from sealing the records. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d); McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988.)
Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling. 11 Joseph v. Bell Before the Court is a demurrer filed by defendants David Bell, DDS, M.D; David Bell, MD, Inc. and Orthognathic Surgery (Defendants) to the first amended complaint (FAC) of plaintiff Daniel Joseph (Plaintiff). For the reasons set forth below, the demurrer is OVERRULED.
A general demurrer lies where the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (e).) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff's proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) Plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on a demurrer. (Hacker v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 270, 280.) Where allegations are subject to different reasonable interpretations, the court must draw inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant. (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal. App.4th 1228, 1238.)
1st cause of action (breach of contract): The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821 [elements]; see also FAC ¶¶ 31-35.) The Court rejects Defendants’ argument that the FAC fails to allege Defendants “clearly promise[d] a particular result.” While Plaintiff alleges facts suggesting Defendants provided sub-standard care in the hardware removal surgery, the crux of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is Defendants’ alleged failure to perform the orthognathic surgery at all.
Notably, a general demurrer does not lie to only part of a cause of action. If there are sufficient allegations to entitle plaintiff to relief, other allegations cannot be challenged by general demurrer. (Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1167.) The demurrer is therefore OVERRULED as to this cause of action.
2nd cause of action (breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing): The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev’t California, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 342, 371 [elements]; see also FAC ¶ 38.) Defendants improperly dispute Plaintiff’s allegations and rely on extrinsic evidence outside the four corners of the pleading. The demurrer is therefore OVERRULED as to this cause of action.