MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
[CCP §437c]
Date: 9/18/20 (2:00 PM)
Case: Vipulkumar Patel v. Govind Vaghashia et al. (EC064357)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Govind R. Vaghashia, Sonal Vaghashia, and Sundeep Vaghashia’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code §§ 452(c) [official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of any state]; 452(h) [facts not reasonably subject to dispute]; Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 518 (“Official acts include records, reports and orders of administrative agencies”].)
With respect to Issue No. 1, defendants seek summary adjudication of plaintiff Vipulkumar Patel’s claim to the extent plaintiff seeks compensation for damages purportedly sustained prior to August 14, 2012. As defendants argue, plaintiff’s claims are subject to a three-year stat
Hearing Date
September 18, 2020
Type
Other Employment Complaint (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
[CCP §437c]
Date: 9/18/20 (2:00 PM)
Case: Vipulkumar Patel v. Govind Vaghashia et al. (EC064357)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Govind R. Vaghashia, Sonal Vaghashia, and Sundeep Vaghashia’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code §§ 452(c) [official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of any state]; 452(h) [facts not reasonably subject to dispute]; Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 518 (“Official acts include records, reports and orders of administrative agencies”].)
With respect to Issue No. 1, defendants seek summary adjudication of plaintiff Vipulkumar Patel’s claim to the extent plaintiff seeks compensation for damages purportedly sustained prior to August 14, 2012. As defendants argue, plaintiff’s claims are subject to a three-year stat