Motion to Augment the Administrative Record
sale of the vehicle to CarParc, while the vehicle was still in CarParc’s possession in California. (Id. at ¶ 8.) This action arises directly from that sale. The circumstances here thus demonstrate that CMC purposefully availed itself of this forum, and materially differ from those in Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1254.
The burden thus shifts to CMC to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. It has failed to meet that burden here. The Motion to Quash is therefore DENIED.
CMC’s Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.
Plaintiff is to give notice of this ruling.
302 Klaas vs. Lyft, Plaintiff Adrienne Klaas’ motion for trial preference Inc. is GRANTED.
Plaintiff has a substantial interest in the action and has produced sufficient evidence to show she is over 70 years of age and her health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 36, subd. (a)(1)-(2); Declaration of Adrienne Klaas ¶¶ 3-9, Exs. A-E.)
The court advances trial from 1/25/27 to 9/14/26 at 9:30am in Dept. C24.
Parties shall appear as to the status conference.
Plaintiff shall give notice.
303 City of Ontario Before the court is a Motion to Augment the vs. Inland Administrative Record (Motion) filed by respondent Empire Utilities Inland Empire Utilities Agency (Respondent). The Agency Motion is GRANTED.
The Motion is timely. (See, Rutter, California Practice Guide: Administrative Law Ch. 20-C, Procedural Motions, Section 20:195.) All written evidence before an administrative agency considering and ruling on an issue must be included in the administrative record put before the court for the court’s review. (Consol. Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 187, 201.) The record must include documents referenced by and considered by the agency. (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 335
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?”
Although the subject documents should have been produced earlier, Respondent has produced a declaration providing a reason for the delay, which the court accepts at face value. (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 3-7.) To the extent petitioners City of Ontario and Monte Vista Water District (Petitioners together) have due process concerns, the court is open to continuing trial and permitting Petitioner to file an amended trial brief based upon whatever additional information the 15 spreadsheets might have that is applicable to the case.
Parties are to come prepared to discuss a potential continuance and new briefing schedule.
Petitioners’ objection is overruled as the declaration merely fills in the gaps created by the opposition. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 1522, 1538.)
Respondent shall give notice.
304 Vincent vs. Before the Court is a motion by Defendant Ryan Pourtemour Pourtemour pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 583.310 for an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed by plaintiff Joseph Vincent. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is DENIED, without prejudice.