Taylor v. The City of Fullerton

the filing of a lawsuit as protected activity for anti-SLAPP purposes. (Bonni (2021) 11 Cal.5th at 1024.)

As Defendant has met his burden and demonstrated that the Complaint arises from protected activity, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate that his or her claims are legally sufficient and factually substantiated. (Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC v. Morris Cerulllo World Evangelism (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 28, 49.) “To meet this burden, a plaintiff cannot rely on its own pleading, even if verified...but must present admissible evidence.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion and therefore has presented no evidence to support the allegations of her complaint.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Defendant to give notice.

2. 30-2025-01464449 1. Motion for Continuance of Trial

Taylor vs. The City of Defendant Falck Mobile Health Corp. moves for an ordering continuing trial for approximately Fullerton six months. The Court finds good cause to grant the requested continuance. There have been no prior continuances, the requested continuance is reasonable in time, and Defendant claims it will be prejudiced if the continuance is not granted and sufficient time to conduct additional discovery is denied. No opposition has been filed by Plaintiff.

In light of the above, the Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. Trial is CONTINUED to May 10, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. in C34. All related discovery and trial related deadlines shall be calculated based on the new trial date.

Moving party to give notice.

3. 30-2024-01443133 1. Case Management Conference 2. Motion to Compel Production ESC-TOY LTD. vs.

3. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Maschoff Brennan 4. Motion to Compel Production Gilmore & Israelsen No tentative rulings. Counsel should appear – remotely or in person- and be prepared to discuss: (1) appointment of a discovery referee and (2) the status of any request for stay pending the Federal case.

4. 30-2024-01402013 1. Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)

Lara vs. Volkswagen Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Defendant” or “VWGoA”) moves the Court Group of America, Inc for an Order compelling Plaintiff Norma Lara to appear for a deposition by remote electronic means and produce documents within fifteen (15) days, or a date that the Court otherwise deems appropriate.

Pursuant to CCP§2025.450 (a), “if, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for