seq.Įxcept as stated above, defendants? motion is DENIED. The bill of particulars procedure should not be used to circumvent the carefully crafted set of rights and responsibilities of the later-enacted Civil Discovery Act.? See CCP ? 2016.010 et. D to Roohparvar Declaration at 3:23-25.)? As to item C, plaintiff shall state its current estimate (subject to the right to amend this estimate in the future as investigation or discovery may warrant) of its claimed losses from loans improperly transferred to Opes and, separately, of its claimed losses from loans that should have been opened by defendants while employed by plaintiff.? No further detail will be required pursuant to CCP ? 454. D to Roohparvar Declaration.)? As to item B, plaintiff shall state its current estimate (subject to the right to amend this estimate in the future as investigation or discovery may warrant) of the ?amount of time expended and the costs associated? with counteracting the confusion regarding what happened to its San Luis Obispo office.? ( See Ex. Requiring this much is also consistent with the general requirement that in a complaint for the recovery of money or damages ?the amount demanded shall be stated.? CCP ? 425.10 (a)(2).īecause plaintiff did not do this ( see, e.g., ? 8 of the Prayer in the First Amended Complaint), and in order to provide defendants with notice of at least the potential size of the claim, plaintiff is ordered to serve, on or before June? 2, 2015, an amended response as to items B and C in its response to the Demand for Bill of Particulars.? ( See Ex. If a demand for a bill of particulars is proper in this case, plaintiff?s response is compliant regarding item A, but not regarding items B and C.? A response to a demand for a bill of particulars is compliant if it sets forth a description of what is claimed and the amount claimed. Preliminarily, it is not even clear that a bill of particulars is required in this type of case.? A bill of particulars is authorized where the pleading alleges an ?account,? but does not set forth the items of the account.? CCP ? 454.? The pertinent passage from Witkin reads ?the tendency has been to construe such a statute as restricting the use of the bill of particulars to the situation described:? an?action on ?an account in which the items are not set forth.? 4 Witkin, California Procedure, Pleading, ? 499, 635 (5 th?Ed.?2008). Moreover, the supreme court has ordered that no attorney is required to demand a. HEARING ON MOTION FOR FURTHER BILL OF PARTICULARSĭefendants? Motion for Further Bill of Particulars is GRANTED in part and DENIED in?part. The controversial bill of particulars has been abolished.28 Ad- ditionally. CASE NAME: SIMONICH CORPORATION? vs.? OPES ADVISORS, INC.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |