Lozano v. Absolute Law Group

6 Lukash v. Avid O/C Bioservices, Inc. 7 Dahleh v. NPI O/C Debt Fund II, LP 8 Nichols v. The motion of plaintiff Summer Nichols (Plaintiff) for leave to file a Mojodojo Cali, first amended complaint is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § LLC 473(a)(1).)

Courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,” absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

The Court finds Plaintiff has shown the interests of justice support granting the motion. There appears to be no prejudice that would result from the amendment as trial is not set to commence until August 2027. Moreover, defendant Mojodojo Cali, LLC d/b/a Sky Zone Mission Viejo (Defendant) makes no argument that it would be prejudiced by the amendment.

Defendant argues the amendment is futile because the proposed amended complaint does not supply facts sufficient to state gross negligence. This argument is more suitably addressed by demurrer or other appropriate proceedings. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Marker, U.S.A.) (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [“[T]he preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.”].)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

The First Amended Complaint is to be separately filed within 7 days of the date of this order.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 9 Trillo v. Cont. to 10/5 American Honda Motor Co. 10 Lozano v. Before the Court is a motion to compel arbitration and stay Absolute Law proceedings filed by defendants Absolute Law Group, PC and Michael Group Banks (Defendants) against plaintiff Nanci Lozano. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

Defendants met their burden to show the existence of a written arbitration agreement that covers Plaintiff’s claims. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.2; see also Little v. Pullman (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 558, 565; Declaration of Freddie V. Vega, Ex. A.)

However, Plaintiff met her burden the arbitration agreement is unenforceable under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, 9 U.S.C. § 401 et. seq. (EFAA).

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governs this dispute because the arbitration agreement expressly states it applies. (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 355.; Vega Decl., Ex. A at p. 3.) The FAA incorporates the EFAA. (9 U.S.C. § 2.) Plaintiff alleges a viable claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov. Code § 12940 et. seq. (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 607-608 [elements of sexual harassment] Compl. ¶¶ 32-40, 75-89.)

Because at least one claim fits within the scope of the EFAA, the arbitration agreement is unenforceable as to all claims asserted in the lawsuit. (Liu v. Miniso Depot CA, Inc. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 791, 800; Doe v. Second Street Corp. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 552, 577.) The motion is therefore DENIED.

Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling. 11 Lin v. Zhang Before the Court is a motion by plaintiff Gary Lin for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,103,418 against defendants Ark Electronics USA, Inc. and Wen Xia Zhang (collectively, “Defendants”). The motion is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part, as set forth herein.

A party seeking an award of fees has the burden of establishing entitlement to an award, and of documenting the appropriate hours spent, and the hourly rates. (569 E. County Blvd. LLC v Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 432; Lunada Biomedical v Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 486.)

At trial, plaintiff prevailed on the cause of action for violation of Pen. Code § 496 which provides for recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees. The 3/25/26 Judgment states, in part: “Zhang and Ark are jointly and severally liable to Lin for treble damages under California Penal Code Section 496 in the amount of $2,700,054, along with Lin's cost of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, in an amount to be determined by the Court.”

In support of the motion for attorney’s fees, plaintiff submits the declarations of Phillip Kaplan and Ellsworth Vines which are accompanied by detailed billing statements for attorney’s fees incurred in this action. The time entries are billed to the tenth of an hour and appear recorded on a per task basis. Kaplan and Vines also attest to the reasonableness of the rates and billing. Defendants do not contest the reasonableness of the rates charged. The court finds plaintiff has sufficiently established reasonableness of the rates and a basis for the fees in addition to sufficiently documenting the hours billed.

In challenging an attorney fee request, the burden falls upon the challenging party to point to specific items challenged, with arguments and citation to evidence. General claims that fees are excessive insufficient. (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Association (2008) 163