NORFORD, LEON vs MOUNTAIN VIEW SECURITIES INC

Procedure section 1008 or Code of Civil Procedure section 473. The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:

CV-23-005739 - TALAVERA, ROSENDO CONTRERAS vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Defendant General Motors LLC's Motion to Tax Counsel's Memorandum of Costs - DENIED. Preliminarily, the Court notes that Civ. Code Sec. 1794(d) allows for a prevailing plaintiff to recover costs and expenses beyond those enumerated in Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1033.5. (See, e.g. Jensen v. BMW of North America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 137-38.)

In any case, the Court notes that the majority of the items challenged herein are expressly recoverable under Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1033.5. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that the challenged costs are unrecoverable, excessive and/or unreasonably incurred under either Civ. Code Sec. 1794(d) or Code Civ. Proc. Sec.1033.5. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4 th 111, 131; Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4 th 807, 816-817; Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 266.) The clerk shall enter the cost award on the judgment in this matter. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1700(b)(4).)

CV-24-007336 - CKS PRIME INVESTMENTS LLC vs HERNANDEZ, HILDA - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to CCP 2033.280 - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-25-009269 - EVITT, KENNETH BRYAN vs CITY OF MODESTO - Defendant County of Stanislaus's Demurrer to Each Cause of Action of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. Based upon review of the moving and supporting papers, as well as the lack of substantive argument in opposition thereto, the Court sustains the Demurrer in its entirety. Specifically, the Court notes that only the Third Cause of Action contains any factual allegations against the County, and the claims suggested therein appear to be barred by the applicable statutes of limitation on the face of the pleading.

Under the circumstances, it is Plaintiff's burden to plead facts showing a ground for suspension, delayed accrual, or application of another theory for avoidance of the statute. (See, e.g., County of Alameda v. Superior Court (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1283, 1286-1287.) Plaintiff shall submit his Second Amended Complaint within 20 days.

CV-26-000602 - NORFORD, LEON vs MOUNTAIN VIEW SECURITIES INC - Defendant Mountain View Securities Inc.'s Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and to Stay the Non-Individual Private Attorney's General Act Claim Pending Completion of Arbitration - DENIED. Defendant has not met its burden to prove Plaintiff assented to the subject arbitration agreement. Defendant's submission of an unsigned agreement and an ADP acknowledgment record, even while supported by evidence purportedly authenticating attribution of the electronic acknowledgment to Plaintiff, is insufficient to establish Plaintiff's assent to the contract terms under California law. Because Defendant has not shown an agreement to arbitrate, the Court does not reach Plaintiff's alternative enforcement defenses.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:

CV-24-002004 - CONSTRUCTION LOAN SERVICES II LLC vs HOGGAN, KENT A - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Plaintiff as Against Kent A. Hoggan - GRANTED. The court finds that Plaintiff has discharged its burden of demonstrating prima facie that it is entitled to summary judgment on its claims, and that Defendant has failed to adduce any admissible evidence to establish the existence of any triable issue of material fact herein. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c; Aguilar v Atlantic Richfield, (2001)25 Cal.4th 826; 640 Octavia, LLC v. Pieper, (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1181).