Related Content
in Kent County
Ruling
COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT vs MICWANE, INC
Jul 25, 2024 |
Civil Unlimited (Toxic Tort/Environmental) |
21CV004188
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.
Ruling
OROZCO vs CARNALLA
Jul 25, 2024 |
CVRI2301639
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.
Ruling
VAUGHN vs FLETCHER, et al.
Jul 26, 2024 |
Civil Unlimited (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |
23CV030341
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.
Ruling
Edwards vs. Tyrrell Resources, Inc., et al.
Jul 26, 2024 |
23CV-0202609
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.
Ruling
Lien vs. Ashby
Jul 27, 2024 |
23CV-0203071
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.
Ruling
ELESHA WELCH vs. 49ER VILLIAGE RV RESORT et al
Jul 24, 2024 |
24CV13526
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.
Ruling
KOBRYN, et al. vs FITZPATRICK
Jul 25, 2024 |
Civil Unlimited (Motor Vehicle - Personal Inju...) |
23CV035618
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.
Ruling
Vionalyn Caguin and Renato Caguin, individually and as successors-in-interest to the Estate of Maria "Therese" Caguin vs. Vallejo City Unified School District
Jul 24, 2024 |
CU23-02784
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.