Michael Hernandez Plaintiff Vs. Lynden Simmons Defendant

MARTINEZ VS. PG&E CORPORATION, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0200316 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of coordinated proceeding. This matter is currently coordinated as JCCP No. 5165 in the San Francisco County Superior Court. The Court has received status statements from Plaintiff and Defendants, which indicate the dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s action (following summary judgment) is currently under appeal. The parties request continuance pending appeal. Today’s hearing is continued to Monday, January 13, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64. The parties are ordered to file a status report at least five court days prior to the continued hearing date. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar. MASON VS. CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC, ET

LADIANA VS THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE ON CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT CVRI2302344 COMPLAINT FOR AUTO (OVER OF CORRECTIONS AND $25,000) OF MALLORY LADIANA REHABILITATION Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Set Aside Dismissal is granted. Order to Show Cause is set for 9/10/24 AGAINST GARY LOFTIS and MALLORY LADIANA, as to why sanctions not to exceed $1,500.00 or dismissal should not be imposed for Failure to file request for entry of default of ALL defendants on complaint pursuant to CRC 3.110(g).

MISTLETOE OIL CORP VS. MCCARLEY Case Number: 23CV-0201770 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal issued on May 29, 2024 to Plaintiff Mistletoe Oil Corp and Counsel Sekhon & O’Bryant for failure to timely serve the complaint and failure to timely prosecute. The Complaint in this matter was filed on March 9, 2023. “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” CRC 3.110(b). It has been over a year since the Complaint was filed and there is no Proof of Service of Summons on file. Counsel was ordered to immediately serve a copy of the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal on the client and file a proof of service. No proof of service indicating that the client was served with the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal was filed. Counsel previously indicated that a Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel was forthcoming. No such motion has been filed. There is no evidence before the Court that would cause the Court to find that the delays are attributable to the client rather than counsel. An appearance by counsel is necessary on today’s calendar. Absent sufficient excuse, the Court intends to issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $500 to counsel for failure to timely serve the complaint, failure to timely prosecute, and failure to serve the client with the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal.

CV-22-005931 – RAMIREZ, CATALINA vs SUPERCUTS INC – a) Defendant Supercuts, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Defendant Supercuts Corporate Shops, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED, and unopposed. a)-b) Having considered the moving papers, the separate statement of undisputed material facts, and the evidence submitted in conjunction with the supporting declaration, the Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, has met its burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the claims asserted against it herein. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).) The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to introduce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a material factual dispute preventing judgment for the moving Defendant. As Plaintiff has failed to do so, Defendant is entitled to judgment herein.

GOD, ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0201767 This matter is on calendar for review regarding trial setting. This litigation is not at issue. United Pentecostal Church International has been added via Doe Amendment twice – first on November 29, 2023, and again on April 18, 2024. There is no proper proof of service on file. The proof of service filed May 20, 2024, indicates service on “Doe 2.” It must name the party. Additionally, the Court’s June 3, 2024 Order directed Plaintiff to file a status conference statement five days prior to today’s hearing. No status statement has been filed. However, the Court notes that United Pentecostal Church International has filed a Motion to Quash Service of Summons, which of course implies they have been served. Plaintiff must still file a proper proof of service. The Motion to Quash is set for hearing on July 29, 2024. This matter is continued to Monday, July 29, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64 for trial setting. Plaintiff is again ordered to file a status conference statement five days prior to the hearing. The Court expects the litigation to be at issue by the continued hearing date. If it is not, the Court will issue an OSC re failure to comply with CRC 3.110. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

ADKISON, ET AL. VS. MAUGHS, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0201172 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (“OSC”) issued on May 29, 2024 to Plaintiffs Angela Adkison and Elizabeth Boren and counsel J&M Legal Group for failure to prosecute the action and for their failure to timely enter default. No response has been filed to the OSC. Plaintiffs have now obtained the defaults of both Defendants. Plaintiffs have also requested a default Court Judgment but failed to file a supporting declaration pursuant to CCP § 585(d). Plaintiffs request to enter a default Court Judgment is DENIED. Based on the efforts of Plaintiff, the Court finds that dismissal of this matter would not be in the interests of justice. The OSC is DISCHARGED. The Court continues today’s review hearing set for 9:00 a.m. to Monday, October 14, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for review regarding status of default judgment. The Court will issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Monetary Sanctions at the continued hearing date if Plaintiffs have not obtained a default judgment by the continued hearing date. The clerk is instructed to mail a copy of today’s minute order to Plaintiffs. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

FRINK VS. MANKA Case Number: 23CV-0201842 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Amend Petition: Plaintiff Samuel E. Frink moves pursuant to CCP § 473 to file an Amended Verified Petition. Defendant Paul Manka filed an untimely opposition on July 10, 2024. The opposition was due nine court days prior to the hearing. CCP § 473(a)(1) permits any pleading to be amended in further of justice and on any terms as may be proper, after notice to the adverse party. The Court’s discretion in this regard will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 920, 939. “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. (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530. The Court finds that the motion was timely made and that granting the motion would be in the furtherance of justice. Defendant’s untimely opposition, which the Court has considered, objects to motion based on alleged procedural defects. In the interests of justice, the Court will exercise its discretion to overlook the procedural defects in Plaintiff’s motion, as well as to overlook the procedural defect of the untimely opposition. Defendant’s opposition requests the Court continue the existing trial and mandatory settlement conference, if the motion is granted. That issue is not properly before the Court. Defendant can file the appropriate motion, if he feels it is appropriate. The motion is GRANTED. A proposed order was not lodged with the Court as required by Local Rule 5.17(D). Plaintiff shall prepare the order. No copy of the proposed Amended Petition has been lodged with the Court for filing. Plaintiff shall submit a copy of the proposed Amended Petition for filing. Plaintiff is also required to immediately serve a copy of the filed Amended Petition on Defendant.

Case Number: 24STCV04359 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 39 TENTATIVE RULING DEPT : 39 HEARING DATE : July 18, 2024 CASE NUMBER : 24STCV04359 MOTION : Demurrer to Complaint Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint MOVING PARTY: Defendant National Community Renaissance of California OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiffs Delmy Yadira Vargas Hernandez, Sebastian Gonzalez, Delmy S. Gonzalez, Babie J. Gonzalez MOTION Plaintiffs Delmy Yadira Vargas Hernandez, Sebastian Gonzalez, Delmy S. Gonzalez, and Babie J. Gonzalez (Plaintiffs) sued Defendant National Community Renaissance of California (Defendant) for habitability violations. Defendant demurs to Plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. ANALYSIS [A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint. ( Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) In ruling on a demurrer, the court must liberally construe[] the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant. ( Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.) Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).) On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.) Plaintiffs first cause of action is for breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege Defendant breached the terms of the lease with Plaintiffs by failing to provide a habitable unit. (Complaint, ¶ 19.) For pleading purposes, these allegations suffice. Plaintiffs attach a lease addendum to the complaint and allege this is the operative agreement between the parties. ( Id. , ¶ 16, Exhibit B.) Defendant argues this agreement is not a lease, but rather an addendum to a lease. That is immaterial. Plaintiffs allege Defendant breached the agreement Plaintiff attached to the complaint. Plaintiffs are entitled to plead breach of contract in general terms. (See Ochs v. PacifiCare of California. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 782, 795 [In an action based on a written contract, the plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language].) Defendant may obtain further information regarding Plaintiffs claims through discovery. The demurrer to the first cause of action is overruled. Likewise, Defendants argument Plaintiffs fifth cause of action for nuisance is duplicative fails. Plaintiffs are entitled to plead in the alternative. (See Mendoza v. Continental Sales Co . (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1402 [modern practice allows . . . party to plead in the alternative and make inconsistent allegations].) The demurrer to the fifth cause of action is overruled. Defendant argues Plaintiffs seventh cause of action for violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 45.30 fails because Plaintiffs apartment is not within the city limits of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs concede this point. Accordingly, the court sustains the demurrer to the seventh cause of action. In opposition, Plaintiffs seek leave to amend to assert a claim under the Los Angeles County Code, asserting they were under the mistaken understanding the subject property was located in the City of Los Angeles. [U]nder this states liberal rules of pleading, the right of a party to amend to correct inadvertent misstatements of facts or erroneous allegations of terms cannot be denied. [Citation.]. ( Berman v. Bromberg (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945.) Therefore, the court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend the seventh cause of action. Defendant moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages. In ruling on a motion to strike punitive damages, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. ( Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the elements set forth in the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294. ( College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721 ( College Hospital ).) Therefore, a plaintiff must allege the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) Malice is defined as conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff, or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. [Citation.] ( College Hospital , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. ( Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, internal citations and footnotes omitted.) Plaintiffs allege Defendant failed to maintain the apartment Plaintiffs leased from Defendant in a habitable condition, and Defendant did not remedy such conditions even though Plaintiffs informed Defendant of the issues. (See, e.g., Complaint, ¶¶ 10-12.) However, Plaintiffs do not allege any specific facts to show Defendant acted with malice, rather than negligently. As such, Plaintiffs have not alleged a claim for punitive damages against Defendant. The court grants the motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages with leave to amend. Defendant also moves to strike the prayer for attorney fees. Plaintiffs allege they are entitled to attorney fees pursuant to the terms of their lease with Defendant. However, the lease Plaintiffs attach to the complaint does not contain an attorney fees provision. Plaintiffs concede as much. If facts appearing in the exhibits contradict those alleged, the facts in the exhibits take precedence. ( Holland v. Morse Diesel Intern., Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447.) Accordingly, the motion to strike the prayer for attorney fees is granted without leave to amend. Should Plaintiffs obtain evidence of an applicable contractual attorney fees provision in discovery or determine there is any other bases for an award of attorney fees, Plaintiffs may file a motion for leave to amend their complaint, accordingly. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs seventh cause of action is sustained with leave to amend. Defendants demurrer is otherwise overruled. Defendants motion to strike the punitive damages allegations is granted with leave to amend. Defendants motion to strike the prayer for attorney fees is granted without leave to amend at this time. Plaintiffs are to file an amended complaint within 10 days. Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of same.