Venegas vs. Ford Motor Company

303 Ferranti vs. The court withholds a tentative ruling. Counsel Zavala shall appear for oral argument.

304 Washington vs. Before the court is an unopposed motion filed by Locke defense counsel William L. Buus and Buus Law Group APC (Attorneys), requesting to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant Andy Locke, aka Andrew J. Locke. aka Andrew K. Locke (Client). The motion is GRANTED.

Attorneys have largely complied with the requirements of California Rule of Court 3.1362, and filed and served forms MC-051 and MC-052 on Client and on the plaintiff. The court finds Attorneys have provided a valid and sufficient reason for requesting to be relieved as counsel for Client. As such, the court GRANTS the motion pending Attorneys filing a complete and up to date from MC-053. The form must include the trial date and any pending hearing dates, including the OSC Re Sanctions.

The order relieving counsel shall not be effective until Attorneys file with the court a proof of service showing the signed orders granting the motion was served on Client. Until such time, Attorneys shall remain counsel of record.

Attorneys shall give notice.

305 Venegas vs. Plaintiff Roque Venegas’ motion for leave to amend Ford Motor the complaint is GRANTED. Company The motion substantially complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, but Plaintiff failed to submit a proposed pleading as required under subsection (a). Nevertheless, the Court finds there was no prejudicial delay. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (a)(1); Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [applying “a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments”].)

Within five (5) days, Plaintiff shall file and serve a Doe amendment on Form L-0132 to add Shelby American, Inc. as a defendant.

Plaintiff shall provide notice.

306 Giannone vs. Before the court is a motion for summary judgment Chaba Thai (Motion) filed by defendant Chaba Coworking Corporation Suites, Inc., dba Chaba Traditional Thai & Sport Massage (Defendant) on plaintiff Brian Giannone’s (Plaintiff) complaint. The Motion is GRANTED.

Objections to Plaintiff’s Declaration: Overrule as to Nos. 1-2 (Defendant did not produce the deposition testimony which allegedly contradicted Plaintiff’s statements and Plaintiff made declaration based on personal experience).

Sustain as to No. 3 (Lack of foundation, speculation, calls for expert testimony).

Objections to Pretty Declaration: Not material to the disposition of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc.. § 437c, subd. (q).)

The sole cause of action is negligence. “The elements of a cause of action for negligence are well established. They are '(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; [and] (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.' ” (Ladd v. Cty. of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917.) There is an “obligation to conform to a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risks.” (McGarry v. Sax (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 983, 994 (McGarry).) A duty exists under the general negligence principles. (Civil Code § 1714; McGarry, supra, 158 Cal. App. 4th at 994.)