Greatamerica Financial Vs. North Runnels County Hospital Dis

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIONS FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR GALIPO VS HYUNDAI CVRI2306113 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, MOTOR AMERICA SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY KRISTINA GALIPO, SANTIAGO GALVEZ Tentative Ruling: Discovery in this matter is Stayed, pending the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, which is currently scheduled for August 29, 2024, at 8:30am, D-4. This Motion is continued to August 29, 2024, at 8:30am, D-4.

HG20063283: Fontanila VS R.V. Esau Development Co., Inc. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion for an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt (CCP 1209) filed by Miguelito C Fontanila (Cross-Defendant) + in Department 24 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Rebekah Evenson The Motion re: RE RV ESAUs INDIRECT CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER RENDERED OCTOBER 19 2022 FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES filed by Margaret Fontanila, Miguelito C Fontanila on 07/05/2024 is Denied. Plaintiffs’ motion for an order that Defendant is in contempt for violation of the Court’s October 19, 2022 order for payment of attorney fees is DENIED. The Court’s October 19, 2022 order awarded Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendant in the amount of $4,622.83, but it did not set forth any date by which those fees and costs had to be paid. Therefore, Defendant’s failure to pay those fees and costs by any particular date is not amenable to contempt. Plaintiffs are free to seek to enforce the October 19, 2022 order the same way they would seek to enforce any monetary judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 and Lucky v. United Properties Investment Inc. v. Lee (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 125, 143- 144.)

CV-24-002775 – MEDINA, LIBERTAD vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC – a) Defendant General Motors LLC’S Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint - b) SUSTAINED, in part, DENIED, in part with leave to amend; Defendant General Motors LLC’S Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from Plaintiff’s Complaint [CCP 435,436] – MOOT, based on the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s companion demurrer. a) SUSTAINED, in part, DENIED, in part with leave to amend. In general, a cause of action accrues when it is complete with all of its elements and a Statute of limitations on claims for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code § 338(d) begins to run when plaintiff has information which would put reasonable person on inquiry notice. (Vera v. REL-BC, LLC, (2021) 66 Cal. App. 5th 57). Plaintiff’s complaint does not plead any facts that suggest that Plaintiff was put on enquiry notice of the alleged defects with said vehicle on the date of purchase i.e. 5/29/20.   While Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Plaintiff took said vehicle for repairs to P’s engine at least 18 times from 5/22/20 till 10/4/23, the complaint does not provide enough information to fix a date certain for the running of the Statue of Limitations. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s complaint states that she became aware of the factual basis of her complaint shortly before filing same. Additionally, the running of said Statute of Limitations is not evident from the face of the Complaint. (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318; Donabedian v Mercury Insurance Co. (2004) 116 Cal. 4th. 968, 994). Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third and Fourth Causes of action based on the Statute of Limitations is hereby overruled. Based on Plaintiff’s failure to state the particulars of the alleged recommendations made by the salesperson, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state her cause of action for fraudulent concealment. The particularity requirement for pleading a cause of action for fraud requires pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered. (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc., (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 167; Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234, at 1248; Boschma v. Home Loan Ctr., Inc., (2011)198 Cal. App. 4th 230; Randall v. Ditech Fin., LLC, (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 804; Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384; Dhital v Nissan North America, Inc, (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828). Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action is sustained on this ground with leave to amend.   Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action is sustained for Plaintiff’s failure to provide the required notice. (Civ. Code § 1782(a); Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th1235; Benson v. S. California Auto Sales, Inc., (2015) 239 Cal. App. 4th 1198). Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action is hereby dismissed until 30 days or more after the Plaintiff complies with said notice requirements, Plaintiff shall file a Third Amended Complaint within Sixty (60) days of the date of this order. The Case Management Conference set for August 24, 2024, is vacated and reset to January 21, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in D24. THE COURT’S PHONE SYSTEM MAY BE DOWN. If you desire a hearing, you must email your request to civil.tentatives@stanct.org before 4:00 p.m. today. In addition, your email must list the email addresses of all counsel who will appear at the hearing. Please refer to the Stanislaus Superior Court website for call-in instructions for the hearing. If VCourt is unavailable the website will post Zoom Meeting credentials for Dept. 24. The hearing will proceed via Zoom if VCourt is still unavailable.

EAKINS VS STATE FARM CVSW2400585 GENERAL INSURANCE DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT COMPANY Tentative Ruling: CONTINUE to September 26, 2024.

Case Number: 23STLC01016 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 26 Koury v. FB Insure Select, LLC, et al. DEMURRER (CCP § 430.10, et seq.) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Janessa Rodriguezs Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. DEFENDANT RODRIGUEZ IS TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. ANALYSIS: On February 8, 2023, Plaintiffs Ken Koury (Plaintiff), in propria persona, filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants FB Insure Select, LLC (Defendant FB Insure) and Janessa Rodriguez (Defendant Rodriguez). Defendant Rodriguez filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint on behalf of both Defendants on March 15, 2023. The notice page indicates the Demurrer will be heard on August 7, 2024 at 8:30 am in Defendant 25 and 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse. (Demurrer, p. 1.) The Demurrer, however, was reserved for July 18, 2024 at 10:30 am in Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse. On March 29, 2023, the Court entered default against Defendant FB Insure. On July 10, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Minute Order, 07/10/23.) No opposition to the Demurrer has been filed to date. Discussion The Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. However, notice of the Demurrer is improper in that it sets forth the wrong date and time, and refers to two different departments in the Spring Street Courthouse. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) The Court additionally notes that Defendant Rodriguez cannot represent Defendant FB Insure; a corporation must be represented by an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. It is black letter law that corporation cannot represent itself in court. ( Clean Air Transport Systems v. San Mateo County Transit Dist. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 576, 578 (citing Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729-730).) This rule applies to all entities regarded as separate from their owners, including partnerships and unincorporated associations. (See Clean Air Transport Systems , supra, 19 Cal.App.3d at 578.) The Court will only consider the Demurrer on behalf of Defendant Rodriguez. The Demurrer is brought for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Citing Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) However, the Demurrer does not indicate what facts are missing from the Complaint. Instead, it repeatedly states that the Complaint sets forth certain facts. (Demurrer, pp. 1:25-3:13.) The memorandum in support of the Demurrer also does not address what facts are missing from the causes of action for (1) violation of Title 47 United States Code, section 227 and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200; and (2) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. It appears to be premised on Defendants version of the facts regarding the parties dispute. This is not a proper basis for a demurrer. A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Based on the foregoing, the Demurrer to the Complaint is overruled. Conclusion Defendant Janessa Rodriguezs Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. DEFENDANT RODRIGUEZ IS TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. Court clerk to give notice.

S-CV-0052500 Sierra Valley Construction Inc. vs. Swan Engineering Dropped. Default entered on 5/23/24. Default prove-up hearing is set for 02/24/25 at 1:00 pm in Dept. 40.

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Tuesday, July 23, 2024, Line 5. DEFENDANT SUNRUN INC.'s MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT/DEFAULT JUDGMENT/LEAVE TO DEFEND. The motion is granted as unopposed. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/CK)

C22-02419 CASE NAME: ZUBER LAWLER LLP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP VS. ENLAN HE *HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: FOR LEAVE TO FILE 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY: ZUBER LAWLER LLP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP *TENTATIVE RULING:* Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is granted. The FAC must be filed and served, as a freestanding pleading, by August 2. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CA DEPARTMENT 12 JUDICIAL OFFICER: CHARLES S TREAT HEARING DATE: 07/18/2024