Emc Insurance Co V Woodfins Auto Sales

21CV004188: COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT vs MICWANE, INC 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Confirm Settlement filed by PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Plaintiff) in Department 24 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Rebekah Evenson The Motion re: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT filed by PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA on 07/03/2024 is Granted. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment is GRANTED. The penalty amount is reasonable, and the award of attorneys’ fees is fair and reasonable. The Court will sign the (proposed) Stipulated Consent Judgment submitted with the moving papers.

Motion to Continue on Complaint for Auto (Over $25,000) of ANDRES CVRI2301639 OROZCO vs CARNALLA ALEJANDRO CARNALLA Motion to Continue Trial by ROOFING WHOLESALE CO., INC. Tentative Ruling: This Motion to Continue the Trial date of 10/11/2024 was filed on 6/27/2024. Proof of service indicates notice was given on 6/27/2024 by electronic mail to all parties. Any opposition was due 9 court days prior to the hearing on this motion (CCP 1005). The Court has not received any opposition. Indeed, the Court received a Notice of Non-Opposition filed on 7/18/2024 by Defendant RWC. Motion to continue the trial date of 10/11/20204 is granted. The trial date of 10/11/2024 is vacated in instead the court will set a new Trial Setting Conference on 10/11/2024. Notice of ruling to be given by moving party. Proposed order submitted by moving party has been signed and ordered filed.

23CV030341: VAUGHN vs FLETCHER, et al. 07/26/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Deem RFAs Admitted; filed by PATRICIA VAUGHN (Plaintiff) in Department 520 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Julia Spain Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Set One served on 2/29/24 to be admitted is GRANTED. Plaintiff requests $1520 as sanctions representing a $60 filing fee and $1460 in attorneys fees calculated at $350 per hour for four and a quarter hours. The court finds this request to be reasonable. Defendant shall pay plaintiff's counsel $1520 as sanctions by August 23, 2024. NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on JULY 26, 2024 unless, by no later than 4pm on JULY 25, 2024, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or self- represented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling. The subject line (RE: ) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument. The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. His/Her email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed. ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice he/she will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.

EDWARDS VS. TYRRELL RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0202609 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of the case. The matter is at issue. The Court designates this matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than December 17, 2024. Defendants have posted jury fees. Plaintiff has not. Plaintiff is granted ten days leave in which to post jury fees. A failure to post jury fees in that time will be deemed a waiver of the right to a jury. The parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to the hearing regarding proposed dates for trial. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

LIEN VS. ASHBY Case Number: 23CV-0203071 This matter is on calendar for trial setting. The Court notes that the litigation is now at issue. The Court designates this matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting the matter for trial no later than February 19, 2025. Neither party has posted jury fees. The parties are granted 10 days leave to post jury fees. A failure to post jury fees in that time will be deemed a waiver of the right to a jury. The parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to the hearing regarding proposed dates for trial. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

No appearances necessary. After review of the parties’ CMC statements, the matter is continued for further case management and trial setting to January 22, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 3. Updated CMC Statements must be filed and served at least 15 days prior to the CMC.

23CV035618: KOBRYN, et al. vs FITZPATRICK 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint; filed by Shelley Dawn Fitzpatrick (Defendant) in Department 20 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Karin Schwartz The Motion to Quash NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF ALI HASHEMI, ESQ. AND SHELLEY DAWN FITZPATRICK IN SUPPORT THEREOF; filed by Shelley Dawn Fitzpatrick on 05/29/2024 is Granted. Specially Appearing Defendant Shelley Dawn Fitzpatrick's motion to quash service of the summons and complaint is GRANTED due to Plaintiff’s failure to properly serve Defendant. Although a motion to quash is brought by a defendant, "the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service." (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) A proof of service that complies with statutory standards creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper. (See Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1441-1442.) Defendant moves to quash service of summons on the grounds that she was not served with the operative complaint. On 4/2/24, Plaintiff filed a proof of service reflecting service of the summons and complaint on Defendant by substituted service on a "Jane Doe" at 6665 Tralee Village Drive, Dublin, CA 94568. However, Defendant has filed a sworn declaration asserting that she has not "resided, abided, conducted business, or used as a mailing address" the 6665 Tralee Village Drive address since 5/25/23. (Fitzpatrick Decl., para. 2.) Defendant also states that "Jane Doe" is not a member of her household. (Fitzpatrick Decl., para. 3.) Defendant's declaration is adequate to rebut the presumption that service was proper. The Court declines to consider the hearsay in the unauthenticated police report attached to Plaintiff's opposition.

CU23-02784 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiffs VIONALYN CAGUIN and RENATO CAGUIN move for leave to file a second amended complaint against Defendant VALLEJO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. Plaintiffs’ operative first amended complaint alleges vicarious liability for employee negligence, breach of mandatory duty to supervise students, and a survival action. The core of the factual allegations is that Defendant failed to respond to bullying against and expressed suicidal ideation from Plaintiffs’ daughter Therese (“Decedent”), a student at Defendant’s Hogan Middle School, resulting in her suicide. Plaintiffs seek to add expanded allegations of the bullying Decedent experienced, Decedent’s contact with Defendant’s personnel, and Defendant’s access to but failure to utilize qualified mental health professionals to intervene in Decedent’s case. Plaintiffs also seek to add a new cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, and/or retention pertaining to Defendant’s allegedly unqualified “Mental Health Support Provider” William Dickens. Defendant’s summary judgment motion in this case, filed before Plaintiffs’ motion for leave, is presently set for hearing August 9, 2024. Legal Standard: Amended Pleadings. The trial court may, in its discretion, allow amendments to pleadings “in furtherance of justice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) The court has wide discretion here but repeatedly stated policy encourages liberality in allowing amendment. (See Frost v. Witter (1901) 132 Cal. 421, 424; Cardenas v. Ellston (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 232; Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 412.) Indeed, if the motion to amend is timely made and granting the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend where the refusal also results in a party being denied the right to assert a meritorious action or defense. (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Leave to amend generally should be granted at any time, up to and including the midst of trial, so long as there is no prejudice to the opposing party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) Leave to amend may be granted in the face of a pending summary judgment motion so long as the plaintiff can display that he was not aware of key facts earlier and is not using the amendment solely to defeat the summary judgment motion and create a “moving target” unbounded by the pleadings. (Falcon v. Long Beach Genetics, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1280.) Plaintiffs declare that they did not know about Mr. Dickens’ involvement in the case or alleged incompetence for his job until their second set of discovery requests was answered and related depositions were conducted, all after Defendant filed the summary judgment motion. (Declaration of Priscilla M. Parker in Support of Motion at ¶¶ 7-12.) Their motion for leave was filed a week after depositions of Defendant’s employees concluded. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Defendant does not present contrary evidence on this point. Plaintiffs adequately demonstrate that they sought leave to amend to add their new cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, and/or retention as soon as able. Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiffs had information about Decedent’s email contact with its personnel in August 2023. (Declaration of Andrew C. Hubert in Support of Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend (Hubert) at ¶ 2, Exhibit A.) However, addition of the expanded allegations concerning Decedent’s contact with Defendant now will cause only de minimis prejudice. The first amended complaint made it clear to Defendant that Plaintiffs alleged email contact between Decedent and her teacher. (1AC at ¶ 14.) Plaintiffs alleged a lack of meaningful response to the warning signs Decedent gave. (Id. at ¶ 15.) The new email allegations increase the detail presented but do not materially change the complaint in terms of informing Defendant of Plaintiffs’ accusations and the legal defense it will need to mount. Defendant also presents evidence of an incident report produced to Plaintiffs in November 2023. The author of the report states that he or she spoke to VIONALYN about Decedent and a September 23, 2022 bullying altercation. (Hubert at ¶ 3, Exhibit B.) The author told VIONALYN that “support staff” would talk to Decedent. (Ibid.) The author encouraged VIONALYN to get Decedent to a mental health care professional. (Ibid.) The author states at the end that a referral was made for Decedent to speak to William Dickens. (Ibid.) This report did not tell Plaintiffs that Defendant had access to qualified professionals. Nor did it tell Plaintiffs that Defendant did not utilize qualified professionals for Decedent’s benefit at any point between September 2022 and Decedent’s death in January 2023. It only told Plaintiffs that Defendant planned to use “support staff.” The statement about the referral to Mr. Dickens at the end appears to be separate from what was told to VIONALYN. Defendant does not effectively contest Plaintiffs’ claim that they only learned about its access to but failure to utilize qualified mental health professionals after the summary judgment motion was filed. Plaintiffs adequately demonstrate why they did not seek leave sooner, showing that their request for leave to amend is made in good faith in light of the pending summary judgment motion. Prejudice to Defendant will be de minimis in this situation. Conclusion. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is granted.