Motion to strike portions of first amended complaint
of Civil Procedure section 1008, because the declarations did not provide any basis for reconsideration.”)
In other places in the motion (pgs. 5-6), petitioner cites to events from May 2025, June 2025, and September 2025, but fails to identify why these items that predated the March 13, 2026 hearing were not included in the original motion.
The court finds there is no basis under C.C.P. § 1008 to reconsider its ruling of March 13, 2026. As a result, petitioner’s motion is DENIED.
The court confirms that the hearing on the Petition (ROA 2) will be on August 14, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department C28. Petitioner’s opening brief shall be filed no later than July 17, 2026. Respondent’s opposition brief shall be filed no later than July 31, 2026. Petitioner’s reply brief shall be filed no later than August 7, 2026. (ROA 76, 77)
Respondent shall give notice of this ruling.
54. Pacheco v. Defendants Guardian Storage Centers, LLC and StorAmerica Guardian Management, LP’s motion to strike portions of first amended Storage complaint is GRANTED with 10 days leave to amend as to the Centers, LLC words “and punitive damages” in paragraph 82 only, and otherwise DENIED. 2025- 01535561 Paragraphs 53, 63, 73, 101, 106 & the prayer for relief at item/paragraph 3. The pertinent portions of paragraphs 53, 63, 73, 101, and 106 appear under the third, fourth, fifth, eighth, and ninth causes of action for retaliation for taking pregnancy disability leave, pregnancy discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to prevent retaliation and discrimination, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, respectively.
The prayer for relief at item/paragraph 3 seeks punitive damages under the “[t]hird, [f]ourth, [f]ifth, and [n]inth [c]auses of [a]ction....” (See Compl. at p. 26, ll. 10-13.)
The first amended complaint (FAC) alleges sufficient facts in support of “malice” for punitive damages under each of these causes of action. (See Civ. Code, § 3294, subds. (a), (b), (c)(1); FAC ¶¶ 17-18, 48-51, 58-61, 80, 94-99, 153-160 [defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment based in part on the fact that she took protected pregnancy disability leave and then attempted to hide their illegal motive under the false pretext of “business needs”]; see also id. ¶¶ 15, 16, 22, 46, 53, 54, 63, 64, 99 [acting through managing agent Bobby Piccio].)
Paragraph 82. The FAC fails to allege sufficient facts in support of punitive damages under the sixth cause of action for failure to provide reasonable accommodation, under which paragraph 82 appears. (See
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?”
The case management conference is continued to October 26, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28.
Defendants shall give notice of this ruling.
55. ACI Jet Defendant Joseph Daichdendt’s Motion to Disqualify Gerald Orange Klein as counsel for any party or witness in this matter is County, LLC DENIED. v. Daichendt As a non-client, Daichendt must establish he has standing to 2024- seek disqualification of Klein from representing any other 01379682 party or witness in these proceedings. “California ... permits a nonclient to move for disqualification of opposing counsel under certain circumstances ... where the ethical breach is manifest and glaring and so infects the litigation in which disqualification is sought that it impacts the moving party’s interest in a just and lawful determination of [his or] her claims, a nonclient might meet the standing requirements to bring a motion to disqualify based upon a third party conflict of interest or other ethical violation.” (Conservatorship of Lee C. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1072, 1083 [internal citations and quotation marks removed] [citing Kennedy v.
Eldridge (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1204].)
Daichendt attempts to establish standing to seek disqualification of Mr. Klein by arguing that Klein has suborned perjury. “The elements of subornation of perjury are: (1) a corrupt agreement to testify falsely; (2) proof that perjury has in fact been committed; (3) the statements of the witness who committed perjury are material; and (4) such statements were willfully made with knowledge as to the falsity of the statements.” (People v. Lucero (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 370, 406.)
Daichendt reasons that Klein has suborned perjury because his client, William Borgsmiller, in a deposition taken in the