San jose nihonmachi

Hearing Description: Appellant's appendix and opening brief filed. Docket Description: Stipulation of extension of time filed:; Notes: Appellant's appendix and opening brief filed. Docket Description: Letter sent advising record on appeal has been filed. Docket Description: Reporter's transcript filed. Docket Description: Notice per rule 8. Docket Description: Civil case information statement filed. Docket Description: Default notice received-appellant notified per rule 8.

Docket Description: Filing fee received from:; Notes: Appellant. Abrams 44 Cal. Standing goes to the existence of a cause of action, and thus the proper ground for a demurrer on that basis is failure to state sufficient facts, not lack of legal capacity. Tarr v. Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. For example, a defendant may demur on the ground the plaintiff lacks legal capacity to sue when an individual plaintiff is a minor, is deceased, or has been adjudicated incompetent or insane.

With respect to the second cause of action, Urban Defendants do not thereafter provide any explanation or legal authority to support the conclusion that Plaintiff lacks legal capacity to sue. Instead, Urban Defendants recount some of the allegations in the FAC and make a series of disjointed assertions about the concepts of demand futility and the business judgment rule. Consequently, Urban Defendants do not demonstrate Plaintiff lacks legal capacity to sue. The demurrer to the second and third causes of action therefore is not sustainable on that ground.

To the extent Urban Defendants actually intended to raise some other pleading defect, their position is entirely unclear. For example, while defendants sometimes confuse the concepts of legal capacity and standing, it is not obvious Urban Defendants intended to make a standing argument. Urban Defendants demur to the second cause of action on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Yet, Urban Defendants do not clearly advance any arguments to support the conclusion that no cause of action has been stated.

Urban Defendants do not address the essential elements of any particular cause of action, such as breach of fiduciary duty, in order to demonstrate the factual allegations in the second cause of action are insufficient. See FAC at p. First, it fails to account for the remainder of the label, which reflects the cause of action is for declaratory relief. Second, when evaluating the legal sufficiency of a pleading, a court is not bound by the label on a cause of action.

Looking beyond the label, the allegations in the third cause of action reflect it is for declaratory relief. Plaintiff disputes the validity of the settlement agreement on the basis Miraido Defendants and Urban Defendants provided it with inaccurate financial information in the course of procuring its assent to the agreement. Urban Defendants do not address this pleading standard. In other words, Urban Defendants apparently do recognize the third cause of action is for declaratory relief but simply decided to address an entirely different cause of action than that which Plaintiff asserts.

To be sure, Urban Defendants do not argue a declaratory relief claim involving fraud must be pleaded with specificity. Rather, they simply discuss fraud without any explanation or citation to legal authority demonstrating their argument supports the demurrer to the third cause of action for declaratory relief.

Thus, Urban Defendants do not substantiate their argument. For the reasons set forth above, Urban Defendants do not demonstrate Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action. The Court considers each part of their motion in turn.

There are two statutory grounds for a motion to strike. Camarlinghi Cal. In sum, Urban Defendants do not demonstrate the allegations may be stricken as an initial matter because they do not identify any statutory ground for their motion. Next, Urban Defendants do not substantiate the statute of limitations argument advanced in support.

Although it is clear Urban Defendants are raising the statute of limitations, their argument is incredibly difficult to follow; there is no clear or logical flow to their argument. Urban Defendants recount various allegations in the pleading in a disjointed manner without first taking a position as to what the statute of limitations is for the claims at issue.

Furthermore, Urban Defendants do not thereafter analyze when the claims accrued as necessary to demonstrate they seek to strike allegations of conduct occurring outside the limitations period. Accordingly, Urban Defendants do not substantiate their statute of limitations argument.

For these reasons, Urban Defendants do not demonstrate portions of the FAC may be stricken out based on the statute of limitations. But this assertion is not actually supported by the case Urban Defendants cite, Union Bank v. Superior Court 31 Cal. The court in Union Bank did not hold an accounting was a remedy dependent on some other cause of action; rather, it concluded the plaintiff had not demonstrated she was entitled to an accounting because she could not prove fraud, breach of a fiduciary duty, or that the defendant owed her some unquantifiable sum of money sufficient to demonstrate an accounting was actually necessary.

Furthermore, it is unclear how the rule Urban Defendants espouse supports their argument that Plaintiff cannot recover damages in connection with the first cause of action for an accounting. Urban Defendants do not offer any other support for their argument. Consequently, Urban Defendants do not substantiate their argument that the claim for damages should be stricken because they are not recoverable. Urban Defendants do not substantiate any of the arguments advanced in support of their motion to strike.

Your email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Link to this page. Filing a lawsuit is protected activity and thus the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis is met by paragraph 26 of the second cause of action.

See Navellier v. Sletten 29 Cal. As Cross-Defendants have met their initial burden with respect to the third cause of action and paragraph 26 of the second cause of action, the burden shifts to Cross-Complainants to demonstrate a probability that they will prevail on the foregoing claims. Cross-Complainants have the burden to make a prima facie showing of facts, supported by admissible evidence, that is sufficient to support each of the elements of the third cause of action for defamation.

Defamation is the intentional publication to a third party or parties of a false, unprivileged statement of fact that either has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage. Smith v. Maldonado 72 Cal. From to the present the building was for a time as the headquarters for the Nihonjinkai Japanese Association until its interior renovation in resulted in it being renamed the Issei Memorial Building.

Currently the building houses the office of many organizations such as the San Jose chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League. The Dobashi market was another early business in Japantown that was opened in by Kinosuke Dobashi who originally named it the Kinokuniya Shoten. The store would eventually adopt the name of its owners and housed the Dobashi family on the second floor.

The shop sold basic goods such as vegetables, fish, farm and fishing tools and other provisions and did well enough that the family opened the Tachibana Restaurant across the street in In the original wooden building was torn down and replaced with the current modern one.

The market was able to reopen after the internment and three generations of the Dobashi family ran the market for almost a hundred years until it finally closed in The building currently is home of the Tsugaru Restaurant.

The Hotel Taihei was built in by a local contractor named George Veteran. It was the first hotel in Japantown and at the time it was the tallest building with three stories. It was owned by Kumataro and Tsuru Taketa and was a popular destination in the early days of the Japantown as many Japanese would stay overnight when they came into town to buy goods.

However, as the need for hotels dwindled in the following decades due to improvements in transportation and more people buying cars, the hotel became a boarding house that would rent out rooms for office use. The main floor had a dining room and the main lobby while the second contained the rooms for guests and the third floor for a time served as the Akashi Photo Studio.

Currently the building is home of the Headliners clothing store as well as the Petite Galleria.