Demurrer
offers no context for that assertion and no supporting evidence. she asserts that she was paid through various entities but “the source of the funds was always nominally from a Quintessentially bank account,” without presenting any foundation for those assertions or supporting evidence. In sum, Plaintiff has not provided one paystub, piece of correspondence, or company report suggesting he was ever employed by any of the Moving Defendants, let alone all of them.
Plaintiff has thus failed to meet her burden here.
In contrast, Moving Defendants have presented evidence to support their claim that there is no basis to assert personal jurisdiction over them here. They assert that they are all UK entities based outside of the U.S., who do not have offices or employees in California, and they assert that their records do not show that Plaintiff was ever employed by any of them. (See Drummond, Wilt, and Ellis Decls., at ROAs 31 and 79.)
Plaintiff asserts that she should be allowed to conduct discovery to seek facts to support personal jurisdiction as to the Moving Defendants. But Plaintiff has failed to identify any specific areas of inquiry he would pursue, what specific discovery efforts have been made to date, or what facts she might obtain through discovery that would support specific jurisdiction as to these Moving Defendants. That request is therefore DENIED.
The Motion is therefore GRANTED. Moving Defendants are dismissed from the action, without prejudice, pursuant to C.C.P. § 418.10 and C.C.P. § 581(h).
The Requests for Judicial Notice presented by both sides (ROAs 31, 70 and 78) are GRANTED under Ev. Code §452(d) as to the existence of the records, but not as to the truth of any disputed facts asserted therein. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264; Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482.)
Counsel for Moving Defendants to give notice of this ruling. 4 Natura Global The demurrer of defendants Keegan Commodities, LLC and Matthew DMCC v. Keegan (collectively, Defendants) directed to the complaint of Keegan plaintiff Natura Global DMCC (Plaintiff) is SUSTAINED with 20 Commodities, days leave to amend. LLC Given Plaintiff filed no substantive opposition to the demurrer and attempted to file an amended complaint (which was rejected first due to procedural issues, then as untimely), Plaintiff implicitly conceded the demurrer’s merit. (See Herzberg v.
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?”
County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20; ROA 24, 26, 27.) Moreover, the parties are in apparent agreement that a first amended complaint should be filed as the parties submitted a “Stipulation Re: First Amended Complaint.” (ROA 31.) The Court notes the order on this stipulation was not entered because it made no mention of when the first amended complaint would be filed. As noted, the amended
complaint was rejected twice. There is thus no first amended complaint on file with the Court.
The demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.
Case management conference is CONTINUED to December 4, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.
Defendants shall give notice. 5 Vanbuskirk v. Before the Court is a motion by defendant Chedraui USA, Inc. dba El Chedraui USA, Super to maintain the confidentiality of documents bearing numbers Inc. CHEDRAUI 0030-0042. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is GRANTED.
The within action arises from a trip and fall incident where plaintiff Rosalba Vanbuskirk alleges that while she was shopping at El Super, an employee placed a restocking cart behind her and that created a tripping hazard which caused her to fall. In the course of discovery, the parties entered into a protective order allowing for designation of confidential material including “Private Employee Information such as disciplinary reports, employment documents, or other records.” (ROA 51) Defendant designated documents CHEDRAUI 0030-0042. Plaintiff thereafter objected to the confidentiality designation and defendant filed the instant motion. (In the Opposition, plaintiff withdrew her objections to Nos. 35 and 42.)
Defendant submits the declaration of David Godinez, its General Liability Manager, who states: “2. Documents marked in this litigation as CHEDRAUI 0030 – 0041 are maintained by Defendant as part of the employee personnel file of Defendant’s former employee, Severiano Mendoza.
3. Documents marked in this litigation as CHEDRAUI 0030 – 0034, and 0036 – 0041 were prepared and maintained by Defendant as part of Severiano Mendoza’s disciplinary and personnel record and evaluation.” (Godinez Decl. ¶¶2-3) Defendant has met its burden to “establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)
“When the right to discovery conflicts with a privileged right, the court is required to carefully balance the right of privacy with the need for discovery.” (Harris v. Superior Ct. (1992) 3 Cal. App. 4th 661, 665, citing Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 657.) The burden is therefore on the plaintiff to establish a “legitimate and important countervailing interest” in obtaining records. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552)
The Court has reviewed the documents and briefs filed under seal, as well as the arguments of the parties. The Court does not find that the documents are directly relevant to plaintiff’s claims. To the contrary, the records relate the disciplinary history and records of a non-party former employee. There is nothing in the records that