You are required to have your LLC registered in California while you are doing intrastate business here (meaning that at least part of your business is conducted entirely within California's borders, as you described). If your goal is to be 100% compliant with California's requirements, then you would need to stay registered here as long as you are operating the business from here. However, there is a bit of a gray area and room for argument with an online business with no physical product and no employees or contractors, since you can technically operate it from anywhere in the world at any time.
A more thorough review of your situation would be needed to better advise you.See question
Your question is not clear on whether the balance was returned to you or not. If not, the bank cannot simply steal your money. Demand the money back. If they refuse, you can then consider pursuing legal action.See question
The deadline is not a hard one, as most judges typically set OSCs (Order to Show Cause) and grant extensions once you explain the efforts you have made to serve the defendant. You can have a process server do a "skip trace", which is an investigative service. If all else fails, you can apply for service via publication.See question
The facts in your question are too vague to warrant a reasonable answer. If the professor clearly signed the contract as an agent of the university and on behalf of the university, then your breach of contract claim would be against the university. If it was a personal contract between you and the professor, than he would be the one to sue. There are many instances in which both would be liable, but it is entirely fact specific. It's unclear whether you are referring to an employment contract or something else. It sounds like you would benefit from seeking the advise of an attorney on this one.See question
I agree with my colleagues that many attorneys subscribe to tools that can help you find the information about the business, but most of those tools simply collect data from public records that are accessible to you.
Most cities require a tax registration certificate to be openly displayed inside the business. The certificate includes the identity of the owner. If you go to the business, you may be able to find the owner's information posted on the wall. You can also try city hall and/or the tax assessors office and ask for that information based on the address of the business. Good luck!See question
Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq, otherwise known as California’s “Unfair Competition Law” broadly prohibits “unfair competition,” which it defines as those business acts or practices that are: “unlawful,” “unfair,”or “fraudulent.” Individuals can engage in such acts, so the statutes are applicable to individuals as well as business entities. It can be based on fraud or conversion.
A demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the complaint on its face. This means that everything in the complaint is assumed to be true for purposes of a demurrer. If the plaintiff sufficiently pled the allegations against you, regardless of whether they are true or not, your demurrer will be overruled. If she did not, it will be sustained. This depends entirely on how the complaint was drafted.See question
The procedure is to file an Opposition to the motion to quash. This must be filed at least 9 court days before the hearing. Based on the information in your question, there is no way to advise you beyond that because you have not included any of the facts surrounding the motion, or the arguments raised by the attorney.See question
Yes, the man can face some serious criminal charges for distributing child pornography as well as disorderly conduct (see i.e California Penal Code 647(j)(4)). Aside from civil charges, you may be able to sue him in civil court and recover damages.
You can start by contacting your local district attorneys' office and/or the police and letting them know about this. Make sure you have evidence to present. If you want to move forward with suing him, you should contact a civil attorney in your area to help you move forward with a lawsuit.See question
If you are seeking to subpoena the ex-employee to appear at trial, you need to find him and personally serve him with a subpoena. He no longer works for the company, so the company cannot produce him. If you cannot get his contact information through public records, you can use discovery tools to demand the information from the employer.
Subpoenas are used for third parties, not the defendant. You have other discovery tools at your disposal, including interrogatories, document demands, requests for admissions, and depositions. You are making things needlessly complicated by sending a subpoena to the defendant.
However, if you are seeking employee records from a non-party employer, additional steps are required. To protect people’s privacy, subpoenas of consumer and employee records require an extra procedure to give the consumer/employee time to object. This can add as much as two weeks to the process, more if they object. The consumer/employee must be served at least 10 days (5 if you use personal service) before you serve the witness (CCP § 1985.3(b)(3)) and at least 25 days before the date of production (20 if you use personal service) (CCP § 2020.410).
It sounds like you would benefit from seeking the advice of experienced counsel, since discovery rules are very complex.See question
Here are some authorities that may help you:
California Code of Civil Procedure § 473 provides in pertinent part:
The court may in furtherance of justice and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading...the court may likewise in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon such terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding... See also, California Code of Civil Procedure § 576.
California Code of Civil Procedure § 426.50 states in pertinent part:
A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article...may apply to this court for leave to amend his pleadings...to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action... the court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleadings, or to file the cross-complaint to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action. Emphasis added.
The court has discretion to grant plaintiff leave to amend a Cross-complaint to add a related cause of action. California courts have repeatedly stated it is the public policy of California to avoid forfeiture of related claims. Silver Organization, Ltd. v. Frank, 217 Cal.App.3d 94 (1989). Such discretion is usually exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. Nestle v. Santa Monica, 6 Cal.3d 920 (1972). Generally, a trial court prohibits amendment of a pleading only in rare cases. It is judicial policy to resolve all disputes between the parties on their merits, and to allow amendment of the pleadings to put all such disputes at issue at the time of trial. California Casualty General Insurance Co. v. Superior Court, 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 278 (1985).
Delay in seeking the amendment is not a proper basis of denial of the motion, as long as it has not prejudiced the opposing party. It would be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend in such a case, even if leave to amend is sought as late as trial. “Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails.” Higgins v. Del Faro, 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565 (1981); Weil, R, Brown, I., California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter Group), 6:659.
The policy favoring amendment is so strong that denial of leave to amend can rarely be justified: “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” Morgan v. Sup. Ct. 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 (1959); Bettencourt v. Hennessy Indus., Inc., 205 Cal.App.4th 1103, 1111 (2012) - abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend when there is a “reasonable possibility” that defect can be cured. Courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the Cross-complaint ”at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,” absent prejudice to the adverse party. Atkinson v. Elk Corp., 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 (2003). An otherwise proper amendment should not be refused solely because the case is on fast track. This is true even where the amendment will require a continuance of the trial date. Honig v. Financial Corp of America, 6 Cal.App.4th 960, 967 (1992).See question