Related Contentin Monroe County
Case
DUKES, MYCERDIA L. v. ROCHESTER-GENESEE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY et al
May 22, 2020 |Nasca, Hon. Kevin M. |Tort-Motor Vehicle |Tort-Motor Vehicle |E2020003348
Case
James Miley v. 1964 East Ridge Road, Llc, 699 Blossom Road, Inc. Dba Julian'S Dry Cleaners
Oct 04, 2023 |Kevin M. Nasca |Torts - Other Negligence (Premise liability) |Torts - Other Negligence (Premise liability) |E2023011452
Case
R S an Infant by Mother and Natural Guardian BRANDY SQUIER v. Brian L Halpin
Aug 21, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |E2024014153
Case
GAETANO VALLE v. Q-DENTAL GROUP PC AND THE ESTATE OF JEFF
Jul 31, 2012 |Stander, Hon. Thomas A. |Tort-Medical, Dental, or Podiatric Malpractice |Tort-Medical, Dental, or Podiatric Malpractice |2010/14740
Case
Carole Mcgrath v. Ue Rochester Holding, Llc, R.M. Lemcke Landscape Associates, Inc., Ral Landscape, Inc., Ap Property Services Of Webster, Llc, Walmart, Inc.
Aug 13, 2021 |James Vazzana |Torts - Other Negligence (personal injury) |Torts - Other Negligence (personal injury) |E2021007558
Case
Littles, Sharelle v. Family Dollar
Nov 19, 2020 |Donofrio, Hon. Gail A. |Tort-Other Negligence |Tort-Other Negligence |E2020009137
Case
Destiny M. Hill, Individually And As Parent and Natural Guardian Of D.H., An Infant v. PV Holding Corp. et al
Jan 31, 2024 |Dinolfo, Hon. Vincent |Tort-Motor Vehicle |Tort-Motor Vehicle |E2024001820
Case
DANNY GARLINGTON v. RYAN J FRANK, DONNA L FRANK, CW GEKOSKI
Jan 24, 2012 |Stander, Hon. Thomas A. |Tort-Motor Vehicle |Tort-Motor Vehicle |2011/09217
Case
WEM PROPERTY LLC v. TAMBURRINO PROPERTIES LLC
Oct 11, 2017 |Taylor, Hon. William K. |Tort-Other Professional Malpractice |Tort-Other Professional Malpractice |2017/00296
Ruling
TALWINDER KAHLON vs. RICHARD FONG, Jr.
Aug 16, 2024 |C23-02605
C23-02605CASE NAME: TALWINDER KAHLON VS. RICHARD FONG, JR.*HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGSFILED BY: PINOLE STATION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION*TENTATIVE RULING:*Before the Court is Pinole Station Homeowners Association’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings(“MJOP”). Defendants Richard Fong Jr. and Fong & Fong APC filed a separate joinder as to the MJOP.The Court recognizes the Joinder and rules on both motions as one.Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings as to the entire complaint, contending that theentire complaint fails to state a valid cause of action.Defendant’s MJOP is granted.Legal StandardThe standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as thatapplicable to a general demurrer. (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.)Consequently, it may be granted if, from the pleadings, together with matters that may be judiciallynoticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(d);Saltarelli & Steponovich v. Douglas (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1, 5; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial(The Rutter Group 2010) p. 7:292.) As such, a motion for judgment on the pleadings involves the sametype of procedures that apply to a general demurrer. (Richardson-Tunnell v. School Ins. Program forEmployees (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1056, 1061; Burnett, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 1064.)In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, courts consider whether the factualallegations, assumed true, are sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Fire Ins. Exchange v. Sup. Ct.(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452-453.) Also, like a demurrer, a motion for judgment on the pleadingsdoes not lie as to only part of a cause of action. (Id. at p. 452; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ.Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2008) p. 7:295.)Meet and Confer RequirementBefore filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “the moving party shall meet and confer inperson, by telephone, or by video conference,” with the party that filed the pleading at issue. (Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 439 (a) emphasis added.) The meet and confer shall take place at least 5 days beforefiling the motion. (Id. at (a)(2).) The moving party shall file and serve with the motion a declarationstating either that (1) the parties met and conferred and could not reach agreement, or (2) the partythat filed the pleading failed to respond to the meet and confer request and/or failed to meet andconfer in good faith. (Id. at (a)(3).)Counsel for Defendant Pinole Station filed a supporting declaration along with the MJOP. Thedeclaration indicates that Mr. Kim attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff both by phone and by SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CA DEPARTMENT 18 JUDICIAL OFFICER: GINA DASHMAN HEARING DATE: 08/16/2024sending a letter outlining their position and requesting Plaintiff contact him to discuss. Plaintiff neverresponded to the meet and confer efforts, so Defendant filed the MJOP.Counsel for Defendant fulfilled his obligation to attempt and meet and confer and filing a declarationconfirming that Plaintiff “failed to respond to the meet and confer request.” The Court would like toremind Plaintiff that even though he is representing himself in pro per, he is still required to followthe rule and procedures of the Court. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 894-85.) Plaintiff isexpected to engage in the required meet and confer procedures and shall do so if necessary goingforward.AnalysisPlaintiff filed his complaint on October 20, 2023. It is a Form Complaint (PLD-PI-001) which attemptsto allege a single cause of action for ‘intentional tort.’ In paragraph 1, the Complaint identifies Mr.Kahlon as the Plaintiff, and Mr. Fong, Fong & Fong, and Pinole Station as the Defendants. In paragraph3, however, the Complaint identifies Mr. Fong, Fong & Fong, and Pinole station as “plaintiffs” andidentifies them all as “corporations qualified to do business in California.” No defendants areidentified in paragraph 5 – where defendants are to be identified. Paragraph 8 is blank, wherePlaintiff should explain the basis for the jurisdiction the Court has over this matter and thesedefendants.The attached cause of action provides the following allegations explaining the purported reasons forliability: Intimidation, harassment, false claim, mental torture and threatening non-judicial foreclosure ((Exhibit H, Last Line of Paragraph) (ALL CAPS removed)While not specifically part of those allegations, paragraph 15 of the Form Complaint appears to assertsome additional allegations: Survey ordered without my knowledge shows wall is 36 inch inside my property (Exhibit E, F), I never have been client of Fong and Fong, non-judicial foreclosure threat (Exhibit H, last line of paragraph) (ALL CAPS removed)It is worth noting that there are no exhibits attached to the Form Complaint filed with the Court. Itdoes appear that Plaintiff filed a declaration on October 23, 2023, which attaches a number ofexhibits. These were not part of the Form Complaint, nor was there a request that they be made apart of the Form Complaint. As such, they not considered as part of the Form Complaint.There is, however, an exhibit attached to Plaintiff’s opposition papers. There is no request for judicialnotice of that exhibit, nor any other request to properly put it before the Court for this matter. Assuch, it is disregarded.As noted by Defendants, a complaint “shall contain” a “statement of the facts constituting the causeof action, in ordinary and concise language.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.10 (a)(1).) Here, the Form SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CA DEPARTMENT 18 JUDICIAL OFFICER: GINA DASHMAN HEARING DATE: 08/16/2024Complaint fails to allege any facts, much less facts sufficient to support a cause of action. It is noteven clear what ‘intentional tort’ is being alleged by Plaintiff.California law does not recognize a cause of action for ‘intentional tort.’ Rather, the term is used todefine a category of torts. There are numerous intentional torts – ones to property, ones to person,ones to reputation; each with established elements. No specific intentional tort has been identified inthe Form Complaint.Based on the above, Defendants’ MJOP is granted. As this is the first time the Court has addressedthe issues in this matter, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file any amended complaintby 4:00 p.m. on August 30, 2024.
Ruling
Manpreet Gill vs. Community Medical Centers, Inc.
Aug 21, 2024 |23CECG05021
Re: Gill v. Community Medical Centers, Inc. et al. Superior Court Case No. 23CECG05021Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 (Dept. 503)Motions: (1) By Defendant Charles Sohn, M.D. for an Order Compelling Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One From Plaintiff Yadwinder Singh, and Request for Sanctions (2) By Defendant Charles Sohn, M.D. for an Order Compelling Initial Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One From Plaintiff Yadwinder Singh, and Request for Sanctions (3) By Defendant Charles Sohn, M.D. for an Order Compelling Initial Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One From Plaintiff Yadwinder Singh, and Request for Sanctions If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Thursday, August 22, 2024, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 503.Tentative Ruling: To grant each of the motions to compel initial responses to form and specialinterrogatories, and request for production of documents. Within ten (10) days of serviceof the order by the clerk, plaintiff Yadwinder Singh shall serve verified responses, withoutobjections, to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; andRequest for Production, Set One, and produce all documents responsive to the Requestfor Production of Documents. To impose monetary sanctions in the total amount of $547.50 against plaintiffYadwinder Singh, in favor of defendant Charles Sohn, M.D. Within thirty (30) days ofservice of the order by the clerk, plaintiff Yadwinder Singh shall pay sanctions todefendant Charles Sohn, M.D.’s counsel.Explanation: On January 30, 2024, defendant Charles Sohn, M.D. (“Defendant”) served thediscovery at issue on plaintiff Yadwinder Singh (“Plaintiff”). (E.g., Thelen Decl., ¶ 3, and Ex.A thereto.) As of the filing of the motions to compel, no responses have been served. (Id.,¶ 7.) No opposition was filed. Within 30 days of service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatoriesare propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propoundingparty. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260.) Within 30 days of service of a demand for inspection,the party to whom the requests are propounded shall serve the original of the responseto them on the propounding party. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260.) To date, Defendanthas received no response to interrogatories and demands for inspection. Accordingly,an order compelling Plaintiff to provide initial responses is warranted. (Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300 subd. (b).) All objections are waived. (Id., §§ 2030.290, subd.(a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Sanctions Sanctions are mandatory unless the court finds that the party acted “withsubstantial justification” or other circ*mstances that would render sanctions “unjust.” (Id.,§§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) As no opposition was filed, the court finds nocirc*mstances that would render the mandatory sanctions unjust. The court findscounsel’s rate of $245 per hour as reasonable, and imposes sanctions in $367.50 reflecting1.5 hours of attorney time in preparation of the present motion and $180.00 in filing fees,in favor of Defendant, and against Plaintiff. The sanctions imposed total to $547.50. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: jyh on 8/20/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
Aug 20, 2024 |23SMCV02751
Case Number: 23SMCV02751 Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 Dept: P The court will GRANT the application. The MSJ is CONTINUED to January 10, 2025, at 9:00 am, in Department P. Opposition and reply per code. This does not have the effect of continuing the trial or the discovery cut off dates. The court does not anticipate hearing arguments on the applications merits, but will hear from counsel as to whether there is a conflict on that date.
Ruling
ANNUNZIATA CRUPI VS BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
Aug 21, 2024 |23SMCV05527
Case Number: 23SMCV05527 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: 205 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles West District Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 ANNUNZIATA CRUPI, Plaintiff, v. BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 23SMCV05527 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF APRIL 16, 2024 AND APRIL 26, 2024 AND MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS BACKGROUND This is a legal malpractice action. Plaintiff Annunziata Crupi hired Defendant Barkhordarian law firm to represent her in an employment dispute with the University of Southern California (USC). (Compl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff alleged she had been wrongfully terminated by USC and also claimed whistleblower retaliation and discrimination. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant was negligent in its representation of her in the underlying employment case by acquiescing to arbitration when the arbitration agreement was not enforceable and was repudiated by USC; failing to properly investigate the amount of damages; failing to properly allege all available claims; providing unilateral discovery to USC during settlement negotiations; asking Plaintiff to sign a settlement agreement that would have deprived Plaintiff of rightfully acquired intellectual property, would have damaged Plaintiffs career and reputation and would have subjected her to self-incrimination; requiring Plaintiff to pay its fees when Plaintiff refused to sign the settlement agreement; failing to disclose its attorneys were associated with USC, and failing to request right to sue letters from the EEOC. (Id. ¶¶ 3-19, 40, 45.) The operative complaint alleges four claims for (1) legal malpractice, (2) breach of duty, (3) fee dispute, and (4) breach of contract. Plaintiff seeks financial damage, social status damage, loss of life enjoyment, physical and mental health damage, emotional damage, possible self-incrimination, possible future conviction [and] possible death. (Id. ¶34.) Plaintiff is appearing in pro per. This hearing is on Plaintiffs motions to vacate two orders, one dated April 16, 2024 setting the trial date for February 2, 2026, and the other dated April 26, 2024, sustaining in part and overruling in part Defendants demurrer. Plaintiff argues that as to the April 16, 2024 order, the Court improperly set trial two and a half years after the date the Complaint was filed. As to the April 26, 2024 order, Plaintiff argues the Court did not have authority to rule on the demurrer because it was not served on Plaintiff. This hearing is also on Plaintiffs motions for sanctions. Plaintiff contends Defendant failed to serve her with Defendants demurrer and motion to strike, resulting in Plaintiff having to expend time filing a request for continuance of the hearing on the demurrer and this motion for sanctions. Plaintiff seeks fees for time expended, service costs and emotional distress damages, totaling $5,000. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs motion to vacate the order setting the trial date is without merit. Plaintiff argues that the Court set the trial too far out, creating hardship because Plaintiff is impoverished. In setting the trial date, the Court properly considered the factors enumerated in Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.729 as well as both parties case management statements, which in Plaintiffs case, does not even state any preference for a trial date. Plaintiffs motion to vacate the order sustaining in part and overruling in part Defendants demurrer is similarly without merit. The motion to vacate is a disguised motion for reconsideration, and as such, was required to be filed within 10 days of the notice of entry of the April 24, 2024 order. (Code Civ. Proc., §¿1008, subd. (a).) The April 24, 2024 order was served on Plaintiff by mail on April 24, 2024, which extends the 10 days by five calendar days. (Code Civ. Proc., §¿1013, subd. (a); Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2012) [¶] 9:326.1).) So Plaintiff was required to file her motion for reconsideration by May 9, 2024. She filed her motion on May 23, 2024. Accordingly, it is untimely. Plaintiffs motions for sanctions are equally without merit. On April 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed three motions for sanctions, all seeking the same relief on the same grounds. The Court denied one of the motions on May 14, 2024. The Court denies the two other motions as duplicative of the other motion for sanctions on which the Court has already ruled. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motions to vacate judgment entered April 16, 2024 and April 24, 2024 and DENIES Plaintiffs motions for sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 21, 2024 ___________________________ Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
YOCHONON BAITELMAN, ET AL. VS JOHN ALPHONSE MARASCO, ET AL.
Aug 19, 2024 |22STCV31294
Case Number: 22STCV31294 Hearing Date: August 19, 2024 Dept: 28 Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Yochonon Baitelman and Yochonon Baitelman on behalf of Mushka Baitelman, Rivka Baitelman and Esther Baitelman, minors, filed this action against Defendants John Alphonse Marasco (Marasco), Amie Jennet Morris (Morris), The Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD), and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. On March 22, 2024, Morris filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Marasco, LAFD, and Roes 1-10 for indemnity, declaratory relief, and apportionment of fault. On August 9, 2024, Defendant City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Fire Department (City), and Marasco filed an answer to the cross-complaint. On June 7, 2024, Defendants City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Fire Department (City), and Marasco filed an answer to Plaintiffs complaint. On June 27, 2024, the City filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Morris and Roes 1-10 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. On June 26, 2024, Morris filed an answer to the Citys cross-complaint. On July 26, 2024, Plaintiffs counsel, Jamie Lefkowitz, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Rivka Baitelman. The motion was set for hearing on August 19, 2024. COUNSELS REQUEST Plaintiffs counsel, Jamie Lefkowitz, asks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Rivka Baitelman. LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, provides: (a) Notice A notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051). (b) Memorandum Notwithstanding any other rule of court, no memorandum is required to be filed or served with a motion to be relieved as counsel. (c) Declaration The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1). (d) Service The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice may be by personal service, electronic service, or mail. (1) If the notice is served on the client by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either: (A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or (B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. (2) If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address. As used in this rule, current means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current. If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) applies. (e) Order The proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers. The order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. If no hearing date is presently scheduled, the court may set one and specify the date in the order. After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) DISCUSSION Counsels declaration does not use Judicial Council form MC-052 as California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c), requires. In addition, counsel has not served all the parties that have appeared in this action, as California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d), requires. The Court denies the motion. CONCLUSION The Court DENIES without prejudice Jamie Lefkowitz's motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Rivka Baitelman. Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Counsel is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
Ruling
JULIAN LAWRENCE COLBERG VS DALLAS B. TANNER
Aug 20, 2024 |24CHCV00646
Case Number: 24CHCV00646 Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 Dept: F43 Dept. F43 Date: 8-20-24 Case #24CHCV00646, Julian Lawrence Colberg vs. Dallas B. Tanner Trial Date: N/A MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS MOVING PARTY: Defendant Dallas B. Tanner RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Julian Lawrence Colberg RELIEF REQUESTED Cross-Defendant has requested that the Court quash the service of summons. RULING: Motion is granted. SUMMARY OF ACTION Defendant Dallas B. Tanner (Defendant) filed this motion to quash service of summons on July 25, 2024, pursuant to CCP §§ 418.10(a)(1), on the basis that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant is an individual residing in Texas. Defendant argues that this Court has no general jurisdiction over him because he is an individual domiciled in Texas and does not have sufficient minimum contacts with California. He also argues that this Court does not have specific jurisdiction over him because he has not purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in California. Defendant is the CEO of Invitation Homes, Inc. It appears that Plaintiff Julian Lawrence Colbergs (Plaintiff) claims are related to action taken by Invitation Homes. However, Plaintiff has sued Defendant personally as an individual rather than suing Invitation Homes. Plaintiff appears to argue in his opposition that Defendant has contacts with California because Invitation Homes has contacts with California. He also seems to argue that Defendant is the principal agent of Invitation Homes. The end of Plaintiffs opposition is confusing because it states In light of the Motion(proposed order) to quash summons, the plaintiff consents and pleads the court to remove this case, alternatively to dismissing the summons. The plaintiff requests as an alternative to quashing the summons for jurisdictional defects, that this case be removed. Plaintiff appears to be consenting to the dismissal of this case, though it is unclear. The Court will address the substance of Defendants motion. ANALYSIS CCP § 418.10(a)(1) allows a defendant to serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court. Where a nonresident defendant challenges jurisdiction by a motion to quash, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the factual bases justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (Viaview, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 216.) To satisfy this burden, a plaintiff must present competent evidence showing that the defendants conduct related to the pleaded causes of action is such as to constitute minimum contacts with the forum to justify jurisdiction. (Id. at 217.) General Jurisdiction A nonresident defendant is subject to the forums general jurisdiction where the defendants contacts are substantial, continuous, and systematic. (DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1090.) For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individuals domicile[.] (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 924.) An individuals domicile is established by a showing of physical presence and an intention to remain there indefinitely. (In re Marriage of Tucker (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1249, 12581259.) By contrast, those who live or operate primarily outside a State have a due process right not to be subjected to judgment in its courts as a general matter. (J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro (2011) 564 U.S. 873, 881.) In this case, Defendant is an individual domiciled in Texas. He works in the Invitation Homes corporate headquarters in Texas. Defendant has a Texas drivers license, owns property in Texas, and is registered to vote in Texas. He has no connections to California. Plaintiff has presented no evidence that Defendant, in his capacity as individual, primarily lives or operates outside of Texas. Defendant has no physical presence in California. Accordingly, this Court does not have general jurisdiction over Defendant. Specific Jurisdiction If a nonresidents contacts are not substantial and systematic, a court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if (i) the defendant has purposefully availed himself of forum benefits by purposefully and voluntarily directing his activities toward the forum, (ii) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendants contacts with the forum, and (iii) the forums assertion of personal jurisdiction over the defendant would comport with fair play and substantial justice. (Jensen v. Jensen (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 682, 686-687.) First, there are no facts or evidence that Defendant has purposefully availed himself of forum benefits by purposefully and voluntarily directing his activities toward the forum. He is an individual who lives and works in Texas. There is no evidence that he has purposefully availed himself of Californias benefits. Regardless of what Invitation Homes has done, Defendant has not availed himself of any forum benefits in his personal capacity. Second, Defendant has no contact with the forum jurisdiction in his personal capacity, so the controversy cannot be related to or arise out of his contacts with the forum jurisdiction. Third and finally, Defendant argues that the exercise of specific jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. When considering whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice, the Court must consider (1) the burden on Defendant, (2) the interests of the forum state, (3) Plaintiffs interests in obtaining relief, (4) the interstate and international judicial systems interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and (5) shared interest of the various jurisdictions in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. (Snowney v. Harrahs Entertainment (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062.) In this case, it would be burdensome on Defendant, a Texas resident, to defend this case in California. Next, California is not the only jurisdiction that would have interest in this case, as it appears that Plaintiff is alleging wrongdoing related to properties in Las Vegas, Nevada, as well. Based on the foregoing, forcing Defendant to defend this case in California would offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. This Court does not have specific jurisdiction over Defendant. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendants motion to quash service of summons is granted. Defendant is dismissed from this action. Moving party to give notice.
Ruling
Hoium vs. Red Lions Hotel Corporation, et al.
Aug 20, 2024 |23CV-0201729
HOIUM VS. RED LIONS HOTEL CORPORATION, ET AL.Case Number: 23CV-0201729This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of service. Proof of service is on file forthree of the four Defendants. No proof of service for Defendant Arlene Windle has been filed. Nostatus report has been filed. This case was filed well over one year ago, and still, Defendant Windlehas not been served in violation of CRC 3.110 and despite warnings to Plaintiff’s counsel anddespite the issuance of a prior OSC. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to providea status of service on Arlene Windle.
Ruling
MARY ANDERSON VS. MANNINGTON MILLS INC. ET AL
Aug 20, 2024 |CGC24277210
(Part 2 of 2) (Tentative ruling continued from previous entry) 9. A further case management conference is set for October 22, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. a. Case management conference statements are not required. b. Parties may appear at the conference by zoom. c. If the parties agree that no CMC is necessary, they shall notify the Court at least two court days before the hearing. 10. Plaintiffs will send a settlement demand to Defendants no later than October 28, 2024. Response to the settlement demand is due November 12, 2024. The parties shall separately submit confidential settlement demands/offers. This confidential value must be separately submitted to Department503@sftc.org via electronic mail on November 19, 2024. 11. A mandatory settlement conference is set for Thursday, December 5, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 503. Personal appearance is required by all unless a party is excused for good cause. A request to excuse a personal appearance must be submitted to Department503@sftc.org two weeks before the mandatory settlement conference. The moving party shall lodge with the clerk in Department 301 by the time set for this hearing a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must email contestasbestostr@sftc.org by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing and state their intention to contest. If a hearing is requested, it will be on August 20, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. Attorneys may appear in person or remotely via zoom: Meeting ID 160 757 8308; Passcode: 485029. Face coverings are optional. The Court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law and Motion department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: Their name, CSR and telephone number, and their individual work email address. There will be only one official record. If the parties cannot agree, the Court will designate a qualified court reporter to provide the official transcript for the matter, and the party or parties will bear the cost. =(301/RCE)
Document
Apr 08, 2024 |Vincent M Dinolfo |Torts - Asbestos |Torts - Asbestos |E2024006009
Document
Kaelin Alvarado v. Outlook Development, Llc, D/B/A Autumn Woods Community Apartment Complex,
May 11, 2022 |Sam Valleriani |Torts - Other (Premise) |Torts - Other (Premise) |E2022003877
Document
Jenny Cordaro as Administratrix of the Estate of LEONARD G. CORDARO, JR. v. The Hurlbut, The Hurlbut, Llc, Hurlbut Care Communities, Rohm Services Corporation, Robert W. Hurlbut
Apr 12, 2022 |Kevin M. Nasca |Torts - Other Negligence (Nursing Home) |Torts - Other Negligence (Nursing Home) |E2022002911
Document
Jan 30, 2024 |Vincent M Dinolfo |Torts - Asbestos |Torts - Asbestos |E2024001809
Document
Wanda Alexander v. County Of Monroe, New York, Sisters Of St. Joseph Rochester, Villa Of Hope f/k/a ST. JOSEPH’S VILLA
Aug 09, 2021 |Deborah Chimes |Torts - Child Victims Act |Torts - Child Victims Act |E2021007400
Document
Gillian B. O'Shei v. William M. Mcgee
Mar 23, 2023 |Sam Valleriani |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |E2023002989
Document
Mar 06, 2024 |Vincent M Dinolfo |Torts - Asbestos |Torts - Asbestos |E2024004211
Document
Mar 06, 2024 |Vincent M Dinolfo |Torts - Asbestos |Torts - Asbestos |E2024004211
