WIXLIB

an obligation not arising from contract and in “every case of oppression, fraud or malice.”There are no allegations of oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct in the Complaint.Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s request for damages “in excess of 900,000”(referring to the allegation of property damage alleged in ¶21 of the Complaint) is “unqualified,unspecific in amount, and not subject to determination by calculation.” (Defendants’ Memo ofPoints & Authorities at p. 5:3.)In Opposition Plaintiff asserts that his damages are certain for purposes of Civ. Code§3287 because they can be calculated, that Defendants “received through counsel the bidshowing the damage to the property, which is a fixed sum of just over 900,000” and that ifgiven leave he can “amend the complaint to allege the tender of this bid pre-suit to Defendants’counsel.” (See Opposition at pp. 3:24-4:1 and fn. 1.)Defendants’ Reply does not address whether they are in fact in possession of a copy ofthe bid Plaintiff received but insists the motion must be granted without leave to amend.“The primary purpose of an award of prejudgment interest is to compensate the plaintifffor the loss of use of money during the period before the entry of judgment, in order to makethe plaintiff whole. Damages are certain or capable of being made certain by calculation, orascertainable, for purposes of §3287(a), if the defendant actually knows the amount of damagesor could compute that amount from information reasonably available to the defendant. Areadily ascertainable market value can satisfy this requirement. In contrast, damages that mustbe judicially determined based on conflicting evidence are not ascertainable. A legal disputeconcerning the defendant's liability or uncertainty concerning the measure of damages does notrender damages unascertainable.” (Uzyel v. Kadisha (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 866, 919, internalcitations omitted; see also Collins v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 140, 150-151.)If Plaintiff has in fact received a bid for a fixed sum to repair the damage to theproperty and communicated that amount to Defendants (which is not currently alleged in theComplaint) that would represent an amount “certain or capable of being made certain” forpurposes of Civil Code §3287. Accordingly the motion to strike the request for prejudgmentinterest in paragraph c of the Complaint’s prayer is GRANTED with 10 days’ leave to amendto allow Plaintiff to amend and allege the amount of the bid received and communicated toDefendants.The Court will prepare the Order.- oo0oo -

Calendar line 2Case Name:Case No.:- oo0oo -

Calendar line 3Case Name: Sherry Chen v. Lundy Center Association, Inc. et alCase No.: 19CV356961The issue of dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint is not presently before the Court. If Defendantis seeking an order that is dispositive of this case, Defendant will need to file the appropriatemotion.As to the present motion, which is before the Court: Defendant’s Motion to Compel isGRANTED.Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant, further responses, within 15 days of thisOrder, to:1. Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 6.3, 6.4, 7.1, 7.3, 8.1, 8.4, 8.7, 8.8, 9.1,12.1-12.3, 14.1, 14.2, 17.1, and 50.1-50.6;2. Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 4 and 9; and3. Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 7 and 9.All objections to Form Interrogatories 50.1-50.6 have been waived, as such, Plaintiff shallprovide verified, code-compliant responses to these interrogatories, without any objections.Plaintiff shall produce responsive documents to Request for Production of Documents, SetOne, Nos. 7 and 9, if any such documents exist, within 15 days of this Order.Both parties’ requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.Counsel for Defendant is instructed to prepare the Order.- oo0oo -

Calendar line 4Case Name:- oo0oo -

Calendar line 5Case Name:Case No.- oo0oo -

Calendar line 6Case Name:Case No.- oo0oo -

Calendar line 7Case Name: Carla Epperson v. County of Santa ClaraCase No. 18CV349869Plaintiff filed this Complaint on June 10, 2019, alleging causes of action under the FairEmployment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) for race discrimination, failure to preventdiscrimination and retaliation. By this motion, Plaintiff seeks to file a First AmendedComplaint that, inter alia, adds four new causes of action: (1) fourth cause of action forDisability Discrimination; (2) fifth cause of action for Failure to Engage in the InteractiveProcess; (3) sixth cause of action for Failure to Accommodate Disability; and (4) seventh causeof action for Retaliation (use of or interference with CFRA rights). Plaintiff requests that theCourt grant the motion “in the furtherance of justice” and argues that absent a showing ofprejudice, delay alone is not grounds for denial of a motion to amend. (California CivilProcedure Code sections 473 subdivision (a) and 576).Plaintiff alleges that the facts have “simply changed” from when she first filed her Complaintin that she could not have known 1) how long her medical leave of absence would last, 2) thatDefendant would put up barriers to her safe return to the position she was hired for and 3) thatDefendant would place her into a job she did not want.Plaintiff admits this request could have been made “earlier” but one of her several counsel was“engaged in other matters, somewhat more pressing at the time, which caused the inadvertentdelay” and the proposed amendment should have been brought up at the recent CaseManagement Conference, but was not, because of “inadvertence”. Plaintiff submits that“Defendant will only be moderately inconvenienced” and that “the alleged delay should beimmaterial as these claims were brought well within the statute of limitations, and well withinthe discovery period of this lawsuit”. Plaintiff also asserts that her civil complaint is not due“until about six (6) months after the DFEH complaint, or in May 2022”.In opposition, Defendant recites that in November 2021, the Court set this matter for trial onJune 13, 2022 and that two weeks later, in early December 2021, Plaintiff announced – for thefirst time -- her intent to more than double the number of claims and to allege discriminationbased not only on race, but also purported mental and/or physical disabilities that the proposedFirst Amended Complaint fails to identify. Defendant further argues that the Court should denyleave to amend because Plaintiff does not justify her admitted delay in seeking this amendment(based on alleged adverse employment actions that began in March 2020 and ended in April2021, the rejection of Plaintiff’s government claim in June 2021, and still 5 more months afterthat denial and after this matter was set for Trial). Defendant also argues prejudice in that it hasalready had to vacate the June 13, 2022 Trial date, the amendment will result in motionpractice and additional, burdensome discovery, including a third deposition day for Plaintiff,who now lives out of state and has previously insisted that the Defendant pay the costs for herto return.“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party toamend any pleading." (Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 473 subd. (a)(1); 576.)

Judicial policy favors the liberal exercise of discretion to permit amendment of the pleadingsso as to resolve all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. The CaliforniaSupreme Court has held that under Code of Civil Procedure, §473 there is a “strong policy infavor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (See Klopstock v. Superior Court (1941) 17 Cal.2d13, 19; Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 297.) The cases haveestablished a policy of great liberality in allowing such amendments at any stage of theproceeding.If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberalpolicy of allowing amendments prevails and it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.(See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.)The Court‘s discretion is typically exercised liberally so as not to deprive a party of the right toassert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense. (Morgan v. Superior Court(1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) This liberal policy of permitting amendments, however, isnot without limitation or qualification. A proposed amendment should be timely made, andshould not be permitted where it will prejudice the opposing party (Id. at p. 530), or whereother factors preclude a proposed amendment or otherwise render an amendmentimpermissible.“There is a platoon of authority to the effect that a long unexcused delay is sufficient to upholda trial judge's decision to deny the opportunity to amend pleadings, particularly where the newamendment would interject a new issue which requires further discovery. (See Rainer v.Community Memorial Hosp. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 240, 258). “a court may deny a goodamendment in proper form where there is unwarranted delay in presenting it.” (Fair v.Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1147.) A lack of due diligence may be inferred from along delay in presenting amendment after knowledge of the facts. (Roemer v. Retail Credit Co.(1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 940.) “if a party seeking amendment has been dilatory and/or thedelay has prejudiced or will prejudice the opposing party, the trial court in its discretion maydeny leave to amend.” (M&F Fishing, Inc. v. Sea-Pac Ins. Managers, Inc. (2012) 202Cal.App.4th 1509, 1534).Leave to amend a pleading has been denied when the requested amendment was untimely orwas prejudicial to the opposing party. (Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass’n v.Goldstein (1938) 25 Cal.App.2d 37, 46-47.) A judge properly denied a plaintiff leave to amendthe complaint to add causes of action, when the plaintiff did not seek to amend until after thetrial readiness conference, the amendment would require additional discovery and perhapsresult in a demurrer or other pretrial motion, and the plaintiff offered no explanation for thedelay (P& D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345).“Prejudice exists where the proposed amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting inadded costs of preparation and increased discovery burdens.” (Miles v. City of Los Angeles(2020) 56 Ca1.App.5th 728, 739).Now that the trial date of June 13, 2022, has been vacated, the Court will exercise its discretionand will permit the amendment that Plaintiff seeks, provided that the travel costs of any furtherdeposition of Plaintiff in California shall be paid solely by Plaintiff and not Defendant(Plaintiff had previously demanded that Defendant pay for the costs of her travel to Californiafor her deposition).

The motion of Plaintiff for leave to file the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED, withPlaintiff to bear her own travel costs for her continued deposition. Plaintiff shall file her FirstAmended Complaint within 10 days of this Order.Counsel for Plaintiff is instructed to prepare the Order.- oo0oo -

Calendar line 8- oo0oo -

Calendar line 9- oo0oo -

Calendar line 10

Calendar line 11

Calendar line 12- oo0oo -

Calendar line 13- oo0oo -

Calendar line 14- oo0oo -

Calendar line 15- oo0oo -

Calendar line 16- oo0oo --

Calendar line 17- oo0oo -

Calendar line 18- oo0oo -

Calendar line 19- oo0oo -

Calendar line 20- oo0oo -

Calendar line 21- oo0oo -

Calendar line 22- oo0oo -

Calendar line 23- oo0oo -

Calendar line 24- oo0oo -

Calendar line 25- oo0oo -

Calendar line 26-oo0oo –

Calendar line 27- oo0oo -

Calendar line 28- oo0oo -

Calendar line 29- oo0oo -

Calendar line 30-oo0oo –

2 days ago · SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 19 Honorable Peter H. Kirwan, Presiding Shantel Hernandez, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408.882.2310 DATE: January 20, 2022 TIME: 9 A.M. To