Acosta, Pedro Aet Al. Vs. Truck Insurance Exchange

Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

C23-02863 CASE NAME: JOAO VITOR LEITE VS. CAMPOS DEMOLITION HEARING ON DEMURRER TO: COMPLAINT FROM: GUSTAVO CAMPOS FILED BY: CAMPOS, GUSTAVO *TENTATIVE RULING:* Defendant Gustavo Campos filed this demurrer on 5/28/24. As of July 8, 2024, no opposition to the demurrer has been filed, therefore, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Background The plaintiff, Joao Vitor Leite, filed a complaint on November 21, 2023, for breach of an oral contract. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant subcontracted with him to perform paving, stair, and wall work on residential property. The plaintiff alleges that he performed the work, but that defendant has not paid and owes the plaintiff over $30,000. The defendant Campos, who owns and operates Campos Demolition, filed this demurrer alleging that the plaintiff is not a licensed contractor, therefore, a demurrer mut be sustained to the complaint. Legal Standard A person or entity who falls under the definition of a contractor cannot obtain relief for non-payment if the person or entity was not a licensed contractor. Business and Professions Code section 7026 defines “contractor” as “any person who undertakes to…construct, alter, repair, add to, subtract from, improve, move, wreck, or demolish any building, highway, road…” (Business & Profession Code section 7026). Moreover, courts have held that a demurrer shall be sustained to a complaint for breach of contract if the plaintiff falls within the definition of a contractor under 7026 and was not licensed. (Brunzell Construction Co. v. Barton Development Co. (1966) 240 CA2d 442; Lewis & Queen vs. N.M. Ball Sons (1957) 48 Cal2d 141) Analysis In this case, the plaintiff alleges that he was hired to drain, pave, and perform stair and wall work on a residential property. The work the plaintiff was hired to perform falls within the definition of a “contractor” found in Business and Professions Code section 7026. The plaintiff did not allege that he was a licensed contractor at the time the work was performed or in his complaint. This failure is fatal to the complaint and the court sustains defendant’s demurrer. However, the court notes the plaintiff is self-represented. It may be the plaintiff is a licensed contractor. For this reason, the court is sustaining the demurrer with leave to amend. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CA DEPARTMENT 27 JUDICIAL OFFICER: TERRI MOCKLER HEARING DATE: 07/17/2024

Re: Burton v. Mendoza Superior Court Case No. 24CECG01031 Hearing Date: July 24, 2024 (Dept. 503) Motion: Demurrer and Motion to Strike by Defendants Roofline, Inc. and Holly Morgani Tentative Ruling: To take off calendar as moot, due to plaintiff’s filing of a First Amended Complaint on June 11, 2024. (Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1054.) Any challenges to the amended pleading must be raised by new motion(s). Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Tentative Ruling Issued By: jyh on 7/22/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)

Parties, or counsel if represented, are ordered to appear personally or remotely to discuss the status of the case and to set trial dates in Dept. 2. You must notify the court and all other parties that you intend to appear remotely using form RA-010. In addition to providing notice, a Zoom link must be requested no later than one (1) court day before the hearing and shall be submitted to the Court through the Court’s website at https://www.amadorcourt.org/gi-zoomRequestForm.aspx. Parties and counsel are ordered to meet and confer in advance regarding mutually available dates for trial.

Case Number: 21SMCV01145 Hearing Date: July 26, 2024 Dept: I The court is inclined to GRANT the motion for a continuance of both motions. First, these motions, if granted, will not only lead to dismissal of the case, but also seven figures worth of sanctions against Fuller and prior counsel. This is not a motion where the stakes are relatively low. And it is clear that Fullers prior counsel withdrew. The court is aware that defendants conditionally opposed the motion to withdraw and the court had sympathy for their position. However, the court must look at the case as a whole. With a seven figure sanctions motion facing prior defense counsel if counsel did not withdraw (for that may be the effect of the safe harbor), defendants exerted substantial pressure on counsel. Counsel ultimately withdrew for reasons not fully fleshed out. It could be because counsel was convinced that defendants were right and the whole case was a sham so they withdrew while they could do so within the safe harbor. Or it could be because, although they believed the case had merit, they did not want to risk sanctions. Or it could be because, although they thought the case had merit, they were at loggerheads with Fuller as to how to go forward or legal tactics. Or it could be because Fuller and former counsel simply had gotten to a point where the interpersonal relationship was so bad as to be untenable. The court will not speculate. But the fundamental fact remains. The sanctions motion certainly put pressure on counsel to withdraw when they did. And the two motions are case dispositive and then some (a lot). Further, the court has read both motions. Neither is frivolous on its face or the sort of motion that will easily fail out of hand such that the court can reject the request for a continuance on the ground that it is unnecessary. The request for a continuance does not jeopardize the trial date. To the contrary, the trial date will remain. This case was filed over three years ago. The court does not currently anticipate continuing that date. However, moving the hearings by three weeks, putting them both in September, does not jeopardize the December trial date. The court is also a bit concerned that McCourt has not been deposed even though her declaration is a cornerstone of the motions. Therefore, and even recognizing that defendants telegraphed this concern when Fullers counsel sought to withdraw, the court believes that the ends of justice are far better served by allowing the three week continuance sought of each motion. The court will discuss the specific dates. Assuming that defendants are forthcoming in discovery, including the McCourt deposition, the court does not anticipate any further motions to continue, and such a motion will be looked at by the court with some not insignificant degree of skepticism.

FCS059237 Motion to Compel Arbitration TENTATIVE RULING The Court (Department Seven) self recuses pursuant to CCP Section 170.1(b)(6)(iii). Pursuant to the direction of Judge Stephen Gizzi, Supervising Judge of the Civil Division, the matter is reassigned and continued to August 1, 2024 at 9:30 a.m., Department Three.

23CV040651: MARQUISES vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. 07/26/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel .; filed by ELEANOR A MARQUISES (Plaintiff) in Department 520 Tentative Ruling - 07/23/2024 Julia Spain The Motion to Compel PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS COMPLIANCE WITH DEFENDANTS OWN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY MONE filed by ELEANOR A MARQUISES on 06/12/2024 is Withdrawn.

FCS059237 Motion to Compel Arbitration TENTATIVE RULING The Court (Department Seven) self recuses pursuant to CCP Section 170.1(b)(6)(iii). Pursuant to the direction of Judge Stephen Gizzi, Supervising Judge of the Civil Division, the matter is reassigned and continued to August 1, 2024 at 9:30 a.m., Department Three.