Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record
[“a decision of a federal district court has no precedential value in this court; at best, it is persuasive authority only”].) Usher v. White (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 883, was not a pleading case, and did not hold that a plaintiff must allege facts at the pleading stage showing an individual defendant was “personally involved” as moving parties contend; rather, determining individual liability under Labor Code, § 558.1 “requires an examination of the particular facts in light of the conduct, or lack thereof, attributable to” the individual defendant. (Usher v. White, supra at 897.) In any event, facts showing personal involvement are alleged. (FAC, ¶ 13.)
Moving parties’ other arguments attack only portions of the FAC, or specific allegations, without showing how the challenged causes of action fail entirely. (Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39 [a complaint is good against a general demurrer so long as it states a valid cause of action on any theory]; PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682 [“demurrer does not lie to a portion of a cause of action”].)
Moving parties shall file an Answer to the FAC within 15 days.
Plaintiff shall give notice.
8 Kell vs. Wilson
2023-01338314
Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record
Attorney Larsen E. Ensberg of Ensberg Law Group, APLC’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Darrell William Lawrence is GRANTED.
Service on Plaintiff and counsel of the other Parties was proper, and all required forms were filed pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.
Accordingly, Larsen E. Ensberg and Ensberg Law Group, APLC are relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Darrell William Lawrence.
The order will take effect once moving attorney files proof of service of this Order on Plaintiff Darrell William Lawrence.
Moving attorney to provide notice.
9 Davinci vs. Ford Motor Company
2024-01386245 Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)
Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition is GRANTED.
Since May 2024, Ford has noticed Plaintiff’s deposition seven times. Ford asked for alternative dates on each occasion and Plaintiff failed to appear for the deposition on each occasion. Only after the instant motion was filed did Plaintiff agree to appear at her deposition on August 27, 2026.
In opposition, Plaintiff fails to provide a legitimate justification for her repeated delays in scheduling her deposition.
Accordingly, the motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a).) Plaintiff’s deposition shall take place on August 27, 2026, as agreed upon by the parties, or no later than 30 days from the date of this hearing.
The Court finds no substantial justification for Plaintiff’s failure to appear for deposition or provide alternate dates for the deposition until after the motion was filed. Therefore, sanctions are justified.
The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $560.00 in favor of Ford and against Plaintiff and her counsel or record. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(g).) Sanctions to be paid within 30 days.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.
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?”