Berentis v. Seybert

5:24-6:10, and FN FN 3.) 3.) This argument fails. fails. Even Even if moving moving party is correct that the representation representation regarding regarding future insufficient, which events is insufficient, which is not apparent from the face of the pleading, the the pleading, the Cross-complaint alleges that both that both representations (4 29, representations are false (¶¶ 29, 31), 31), which allegation allegation the court must accept as true. (De/ E. true. (Del E. Webb Webb Corp. Corp. v. v. Structural Materials Co. Materials Co. (1981) (1981) 123 123 Cal.App.3d Cal.App.3d 593, 593, 604 [for purposes of the challenged pleading demurrer, the allegations of the pleading must be accepted as true].) accepted true].)

Further, like the action, any timeliness defect is the first cause of action, not “clearly “clearly and affirmatively” affirmatively” shown shown on the face of the Cross- complaint. (Geneva Towers complaint. Towers Ltd. Ltd. Partnership Partnership v. v. City City of of San San Francisco, Francisco, supra at 781.) 781.)

34 3 cause of action: false promise. rd cause of action: false promise.

This cause of action action states sufficient facts. facts. (CACI 1902 1902 [elements]; Cross-complaint, [elements]; Cross-complaint, ¶¶ 17-19, 17-19, 36, 36, 37 37 [false [false promises in promises in Subscription Subscription Agreement], Agreement], 38,38, 39 39 [scienter], [scienter], 41 41 reliance], 42 [proximately [lack of awareness, reliance], [proximately caused caused damages].) damages].) Moving Moving party’s party’s arguments as to this cause of action fail action fail for for the same reasons the same reasons as as discussed discussed above. above.

The case management The case management conference conference is is continued continued to to October October 12, 12, a.m. in 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28. C28.

shall give notice of this ruling. Cross-complainant shall ruling.

55. | Berentis v. 55. v. Attorney Arthur Petrousian’s Petrousian’s motion motion to be relieved as attorney attorney Seybert record for plaintiff Jayson of record GRANTED. Jayson Berentis is GRANTED.

2024- 2024- The order shall The order shall become become effective effective upon upon the the filing filing of of the the proof proof of of 01430186 01430186 service of service of the executed order. the executed order.

Moving counsel Moving counsel Petrousian Petrousian shall shall give give notice notice of of this this ruling. ruling.

56. | Njeri 56. Njeri v. v. Defendant Tesla, Tesla, Inc.’s Inc.’s motion motion to compel compel arbitration is Tesla, Inc. Tesla, Inc. GRANTED. (See GRANTED. (See Code Code Civ. Civ. Proc., Proc., § § 1281.2.) 1281.2.)

2025- 2025- Plaintiff Irene Njeri is ORDERED to arbitrate her claims against 01491391 01491391 defendant in defendant in accordance accordance with with the the terms of the terms of the arbitration arbitration provision provision in the parties’ in the parties’ Motor Vehicle Order Agreement (MVOA). (See Kim Decl. (MVOA). Decl. at Ex. Ex. 11 [MVOA]; [MVOA]; Sanders Decl. Decl. at Ex. Ex. 11 [same].) [same].)

Defendant has Defendant has met met its its burden burden to demonstrate the to demonstrate the existence existence of of controversy. (See Ramirez v. an agreement to arbitrate the controversy. v. Golden Queen Mining Co.,Co., LLC (2024) (2024) 102102 Cal.App.5th Cal.App.5th 821, 830-832 [three-step 830-832 [three-step burden burden shifting process]; process]; Iyere v. Wise Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) Auto Group (2023) 87 87 Cal.App.5th Cal.App.5th 747, 747, 755 755 [same]; [same]; see see also also Kim Decl. Kim Decl. ¶¶ 9] 2-7, 2-7, Ex. Ex. 11 [MVOA].) [MVOA].) Plaintiff Plaintiff has has not not challenged challenged