Motion to vacate
results in the concession of that argument. (DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566) The motion is GRANTED as to the 9th cause of action.
10th Cause of Action: Negligent Supervision AND 11th Cause of Action: Negligent Hiring and Retention: Defendant failed to meet its burden to show one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established. Question of fact as to sufficiency of investigation and response to complaint of harassment. No evidence showing preemployment fitness of Bridges. (CACI 426 [elements]; Code Civ. Proc. 437c(p)[burden]) The motion is DENIED as to the 10th cause of action.
Punitive Damages: In plaintiff’s opposition, she does not dispute defendant’s challenge to punitive damages. Failing to challenge a contention in a brief results in the concession of that argument. (DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566) Further, Defendant met its burden to show Bridges not managing agent. (Civ. Code §3294; Wilson v. Southern California Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123, 164; Flynn Decl. ¶3) Plaintiff has not met her shifted burden. (Code Civ. Proc. 437c(p)(2).) The motion is GRANTED as to punitive damages.
Plaintiff shall give notice.
204 Lara vs. Wraith, The motion to vacate by Defendants Wraith LP and LP Wraith 21, LLC is GRANTED.
The default entered on January 28, 2026 as to Wraith, LP (ROA 31) and the default entered on January 28, 2026 as to Wraith, LLC (ROA 30) are VACATED. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b) [“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative
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?”
from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”]; see also Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233 [requiring “very slight evidence” and resolving “all doubts ... in favor of the party seeking relief from default”]; see also Ron Burns Constructions Co., Inc. v. Moore (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1413 [“policy of the law is to have every litigated case tried upon its merits.”])
Defendants are ordered to file the answer attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of E. Jennie Barkinskaya within 10 days.
The CMC is continued from 7/6/26 to 9/8/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.
Defendant shall give notice.
205 Sotto vs. Rhyan The demurrer filed by defendant Stephen M. Rhyan, individually and as trustee of the Seymore and Joan Rhyan Family Trust (Rhyan) to the first amended complaint (FAC) of plaintiff Roberto Sotto (Plaintiff) is SUSTAINED IN PART with 20 days leave to amend and OVERRULED IN PART, as set forth below.
Rhyan’s request for judicial notice of the FAC is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452(d).)
Second Cause of Action for Wrongful Eviction
Plaintiff alleges he occupied the property located at 26832 Via La Mirada, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 (Subject Property) pursuant to an oral lease agreement with defendant Christine T. Trabucco (Trabucco). (FAC ¶ 34.) Plaintiff alleges after Trabucco’s master lease was terminated, the Seymore and Joan Rhyan Family Trust (Trust) assumed the lease. (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges he