We are checking for the latest updates in this case. We will email you when the process is complete.

United Financial Casualty Vs Bennett, Et All

Case Last Refreshed: 3 years ago

United Financial Casualty, filed a(n) Automobile - Torts case represented by Juhl, Nicholas William, against Bennett, John, Ever Fresh Farms Transportation, represented by Gauen, Andrew C., in the jurisdiction of Adams County, WA, . Adams County, WA Superior Courts .

Case Details for United Financial Casualty v. Bennett, John , et al.

Filing Date

December 01, 2017

Category

Tmv Tort - Motor Vehicle

Last Refreshed

May 20, 2021

Practice Area

Torts

Filing Location

Adams County, WA

Matter Type

Automobile

Parties for United Financial Casualty v. Bennett, John , et al.

Plaintiffs

United Financial Casualty

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Juhl, Nicholas William

Defendants

Bennett, John

Ever Fresh Farms Transportation

Attorneys for Defendants

Gauen, Andrew C.

Case Events for United Financial Casualty v. Bennett, John , et al.

Type Description
Docket Event Status Report
Docket Event Declaration of Mailing
Docket Event Clerks Notice for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Docket Event Case Resolution Consolidated Case
consolidated into to 17-2-00005-5
Docket Event Answer
5: ANSWER;
Docket Event Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
3: AFFIDAVIT/DCLR/CERT OF SERVICE;
Docket Event Notice of Appearance
4: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE;
Docket Event Summons
2: SUMMONS;
Docket Event Complaint
1: COMPLAINT;
See all events

Related Content in Adams County

Case

HANKINS ET ANO VS CRUZ ET ANO
Jul 16, 2024 | Tort /Motor Vehicle - Active | 24-2-15832-4 KNT

Case

Rachel L Henderson et al vs Joan V Whitecrane et al
Jul 16, 2024 | TMV Tort - Motor Vehicle | 24-2-01535-03

Case

ALLEN, JESSICA vs SCHMAUTZ, KODY et al
Jul 17, 2024 | IC CaseLoad, 99 | PIN Personal Injury | 24-2-03468-32

Case

Allstate Indemnity Co vs Freddy Navarette et al
Jul 12, 2024 | TMV Tort - Motor Vehicle | 24-2-05389-31

Case

VIOLACEAE VS SEIPLE ET ANO
Jul 15, 2024 | Tort /Motor Vehicle - Active | 24-2-15726-3 SEA

Case

YOUNT VS PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA ET AL
Jul 12, 2024 | Tort /Other - Active | 24-2-15637-2 SEA

Case

CONNIE L SHAW et al vs URIBE'S TREE SERVICE, LLC et al
Jul 17, 2024 | TMV Tort - Motor Vehicle | 24-2-01989-39

Case

CITY OF SEATTLE VS CONCORD CONDOMINIUM ASSN
Jul 15, 2024 | Property Damage - Active | 24-2-15826-0 SEA

Case

WARREN VS TEAGUE
Jul 18, 2024 | Tort /Motor Vehicle - Active | 24-2-16141-4 KNT

Ruling

MATTHEW NEWELLS, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
Jul 15, 2024 | 19STCV07742
Case Number: 19STCV07742 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Dept: 32 PLEASE NOTE : Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that partys intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court . TENTATIVE RULING DEPT : 32 HEARING DATE : July 15, 2024 CASE NUMBER : 19STCV07742 MOTIONS : Motion to Vacate Erroneous Minute Order MOVING PARTY: Defendant County of Los Angeles, Deputies George Hanley and William Warner OPPOSING PARTY: None BACKGROUND On March 5, 2019, Plaintiffs Matthew Newells, Tevye Nguyen, Taviere N., and Matthew N. filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against Defendants County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Unidentified Deputies, and Does 1 to 100 for negligence, wrongful death, and a violation of Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983). On September 27, 2019, the case was removed to federal court. (Notice of Removal to Federal Court, filed 10/1/19.) While in federal court, Plaintiffs filed the operative second amended complaint (SAC) alleging the same causes of action. (See Plaintiffs Appendix of Federal Court Filings Prior to Remand, Volume 4, 17581778, filed 6/8/23.) Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha granted summary judgment as to the third cause of action for a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Plaintiffs Appendix of Federal Court Filings Prior to Remand, Volume 6, 27472764, filed 6/8/23.) On July 20, 2022, the Federal Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and the case was remanded to the Los Angeles Superior Court. (See Plaintiffs Appendix of Federal Court Filings Prior to Remand, Volume 6, 27822785, filed 6/8/23.) On April 4, 2024, the Court granted Defendants County of Los Angeles (erroneously sued as Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department), and Deputies Hanley and Warners (collectively, Defendants) motion for summary judgment. On April 29, 2024, the case was called for trial and there were no appearances. The Court then entered the following order: The Court orders Doe(s), all, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and Unidentified Deputies in Amended Complaint (1st) filed by Matthew Newells, et al. on 08/29/2019 dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal is pursuant to CCP 581 (b)(3). (Min. Order, 4/29/24.) Defendants now move under Code of Civil Procedure section 116.725(a)(2), to correct the error in the April 29, 2024 minute order. Defendants argue the minute order is incorrect since the first amended complaint is not the operative complaint in this case. No opposition has been filed. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 116.725 states the following in relevant part: (a) A motion to correct a clerical error in a judgment or to set aside and vacate a judgment on the ground of an incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision may be made as follows: (1) By the court on its own motion at any time. (2) By a party within 30 days after the clerk mails notice of entry of judgment to the parties. DISCUSSION Based on the procedural history of this case, the Court concludes that the second amended complaint, originally filed while this case was pending in federal court is the operative pleading. Accordingly, the Court vacates the April 29, 2024 order and sets aside the dismissal as to Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and Unidentified Deputies in the First Amended Complaint. However, the Second Amended Complaint alleged Does 1 through 10. No Does have been named or served. At the hearing on this motion, Plaintiffs shall confirm that they are moving to dismiss Does.

Ruling

JOHN KNOX, ET AL. VS THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPALITY, AND ITS FIRE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.
Jul 17, 2024 | 23STCV13328
Case Number: 23STCV13328 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 19 After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, the Court rules as follows: The Court grants Defendant City of Los Angeles request for a stay of proceedings. (Code of Civ. Proc. section 128). The Court will not issue its final ruling on the Demurrer by Defendant City of Los Angeles until the pending proceedings on the Petitions For Writ of Mandate filed by Plaintiffs Mathhew Mammone (Case No. 23STCP02876) and Timmothy Hamson (Case No. 23STCP03315), and any other writ petitions by named Plaintiffs, are completed. The Court sets a Status Conference Re: Petitions For Writ of Mandate for November 7, 2024, at 8:30. The parties are ordered to file and serve Status Reports by November 1, 2024. The hearing on Demurrer is CONTINUED TO November 18, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. On the Courts own motion, the Case Management Conference is CONTINUED TO November 18, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. Counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles to give notice. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This action arises out of alleged civil rights violations. Plaintiffs John Knox, Adin Waldrip, Jeffery Ochoa, Michael Hayes, Nicholas Collins, Morgan Bradley, Shane Nelson, Nathaniel Helton, Nicholas Watkins, Ian Tarango, Matthew Mammone, Timothy Hamson, Chris Curtis, Eliott Jones, Gabriela Mendo, Richard Tanguay, Edward Brockschmidt, and Armando Carranza (collectively, Plaintiffs) bring suit against Defendants The City of Los Angeles, a municipality, and its Fire Department (the City), Ralph Terrazas, Kristin Crowley, Alfred Poirier, John Drake, Armando Hogan, Graham Everett, David Perez, Kristina Kepner, Carlos Calvillo, Kairi Brown, Eric Talamantes, Amir Caspian, Albert Valle, Timothy Wuerfel, Glenn Baham, and Michael Henderson (collectively, Defendants) alleging the following causes of action: 1. Denial Of Due Process (FBOR, Skelly, and §1060); 2. Denial Of Equal Protection; 3. Denial Of Right To Privacy; 4. Denial Of Right To Refuse Medical Treatment; 5. Redress Of Perceived Disability Discrimination; 6. Redress Of Religious Discrimination; 7. Redress Of Genetic Testing Discrimination; 8. Redress Discrimination Due To Association; 9. Lack Of Good Faith Interactive; 10. Failure To Accommodate; 11. Redress Harassment; 12. Redress Unlawful Retaliation; 13. Redress Failure To Prevent Discrimination, Harassment And Retaliation; And 14. Declaratory Relief. Defendant City of Los Angeles filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiffs Complaint. GROUNDS FOR DEMURRER Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (d), (e), and (f), Defendant City demurs to each cause of action on the grounds that (1) there is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (2) uncertainty; and (3) failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. MEET/CONFER The Court finds that Defendant City substantially complied with the meet and confer requirements. (See M. Aaron Neishlos Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.) REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE The Court GRANTS Defendant Citys request to take judicial notice of Exhibits 1 through 7. (Evid. Code, § 452(d), (h).) The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs request to take judicial notice of Exhibits A and B. (Evid. Code, § 452(d), (h); see Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113-14]; StorMedia Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457 n. 9; see also Cruz v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1131, 1134). DISCUSSION I. DEMURRER Misjoinder of Parties Defendant City demurs to the entire Complaint on the ground that [t]he 18 Plaintiffs claims do not arise out of the same transaction(s) or occurrence(s) and nothing in the Complaint indicates that their respective disciplinary proceedings were sufficiently related so as to constitute a single series of occurrences or a common plan pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 378. The Court does not rule on the arguments regarding misjoinder under section 378 at this time. However, Defendant City alternatively demurs on the ground that the inclusion of Plaintiffs Hamson and Mammone, who have pending petitions for writ of mandate and must first succeed in overturning the determination of the Board of Rights before proceeding with the instant action, would create the risk of inconsistent rulings and would waste judicial resources. Defendant City requests that the Court stay the action pending resolution of Plaintiffs Hamson and Mammones writ of mandates. Plaintiffs fail to address this alternative request for a stay. Defendant highlights this in its Reply brief. The Court notes that in the Opposition, Plaintiff state that another Writ by Plaintiff Chris Curtis will soon be filed. (Opposition at pp. 7-8.) The Court agrees with the Defendant Citys argument that because Plaintiffs Hamson and Mammone both have pending Petitions for Writ of Mandate (Defendants RJN, Exhibits 2 and 3), and another soon to be filed by Plaintiff Chris Curtis, this action should be stayed. (Code of Civ. Proc. section 128). The Court finds that this is warranted in the interest of justice. ( Frieberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4 th 1484, 1489). In those writ petitions, Plaintiffs Hamson and Mammone generally name the same Defendants as in this case, complain about the City of Los Angeles COVID-19 Ordinance and its vaccination requirements for all employees, and allege, among other things, that they were placed on suspension without pay, the actions by the City were unlawful, including violations of the federal and state labor and employment laws, violations of State and Federal Constitutions, as well as violations of the due process requirements under the Firefighters Bill of Rights, section 1060 of the City Charter, and Skelly v. State of California (1975) 15 Cal. 3d. 194. The Court finds that a stay of proceedings is proper at this time for the above reasons. After the writ proceedings are completed, the Court will proceed to finalize its ruling on the demurrer. If the parties request time for additional briefing, they may request such in their respective Status Reports.

Ruling

JOHN SJ DOE VS CLAREMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
Jul 16, 2024 | 21STCV43583
Case Number: 21STCV43583 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: G Defendant Claremont Unified School Districts Motion to Direct Compliance with Business Records Subpoena on Meta Platforms, Inc. Seeking Electronically Stored Information Related to Plaintiffs Social Media Posts Respondent: Plaintiff John SJ Doe and Non-Party Meta Platforms, Inc. Non-Party Meta Platforms, Inc.s Unopposed Motion to Seal Respondent: NO OPPOSITION TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Claremont Unified School Districts Motion to Direct Compliance with Business Records Subpoena on Meta Platforms, Inc. Seeking Electronically Stored Information Related to Plaintiffs Social Media Posts is GRANTED. Non-Party Meta Platforms, Inc. is ordered to serve the requested records on Defendant Claremont Unified School District within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this order. Non-Party Meta Platforms, Inc.s Unopposed Motion to Seal is GRANTED. BACKGROUND This action arises from the sexual abuse of a high school student by school staff. Defendant Brandy Wilborn was a teachers aide employed by Defendant Claremont Unified School District (CUSD) at Claremont High School. Plaintiff John SJ Doe was a student at Claremont High School. From December 2014 to May 2015, Wilborn sexually assaulted, abused, molested, and harassed Doe. Wilborn was then arrested in 2015 and pled no contest to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. On November 29, 2021, Doe filed a complaint for damages against CUSD, Wilborn, and Does 1 through 50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress against all defendants; (2) negligence against CUSD and Does 1-50; (3) negligent supervision against CUSD and Does 1-50; (4) negligent retention/hiring against CUSD and Does 1-50; (5) negligent failure to train, warn, or educate against CUSD and Does 1-50; (6) breach of fiduciary duty against all defendants; (7) constructive fraud pursuant to Civil Code, section 1573 against all defendants; (8) sexual harassment pursuant to Civil Code, section 51.9 against all defendants; (9) sexual harassment and abuse in the educational setting pursuant to Education Code, section 220 against CUSD and Does 1-50; (10) sexual battery against Wilborn; (11) gender violence pursuant to Civil Code, section 52.4 against Wilborn; and (12) violation of Penal Code, section 647.6, subdivision (a)(1) against Wilborn. On June 17, 2022, the Court sustained CUSDs demurrer to the Complaint. On September 6, 2022, Doe filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the same causes of action. On February 9, 2023, the Court sustained CUSDs demurrer to the FAC. On March 1, 2023, Doe filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against the same defendants alleging the same causes of action. On July 24, 2023, the Court sustained and overruled CUSDs demurrer to the SAC in part without leave to amend. On February 9, 2024, CUSD filed the present motion. After obtaining ex parte relief to file one of the motions exhibits under seal, CUSD refiled the motion on April 25, 2024. On June 11, 2024, CUSD filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 20, 2024, Non-Party Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta) filed the present motion to seal. A hearing on the present motions is set for July 16, 2024, along with a post-mediation status conference/trial setting conference. CUSDs motion for summary judgment is set for August 27, 2024. ANALYSIS CUSD moves to compel non-party Metas compliance with a deposition subpoena for data from Does Instagram account. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Does motion. Legal Standard A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.) A deposition subpoena may command: (1) only the attendance and testimony of the deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.) Service of a deposition subpoena shall be done with sufficient time in advance of the deposition to provide the deponent a reasonable opportunity to locate and produce any designated documents and, where personal attendance is commanded, a reasonable time to travel to the place of deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (a).) Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require a deponent who is a resident of California to: personally appear and testify, if the subpoena so specifies; to produce any specified documents; and to appear at a court session if the subpoena so specifies. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (c).) If a deponent fails to appear or produce requested documents for a deposition, the deposing party may file a noticed motion to compel deponents compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena may also be punished for contempt without the necessity of a prior court order court directing compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240.) A noncompliant deponent may also be ordered to pay $500 to the deposing party in addition to any damages the deposing party incurred as a result of the deponents failure to attend the deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 1992.) Discussion On December 7, 2023, CUSD served a deposition subpoena on Meta requesting the following data from Does Instagram account over a period from April 21, 2013 to 2020: (1) all communications with or relating to Wilborn, (2) all communications referencing Wilborn, (3) all photos posted by Doe, (4) all comments made by Doe, (5) all references by Doe to psychological or emotional distress and treatment, and (6) all posts by Doe referring to potential stressors related to emotional distress. (Kostrenich Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) On December 12, 2023, Meta objected to the subpoena on the grounds that the Stored Communications Act requires subpoenas to be directed at the account user as opposed to the account service provider. (Kostrenich Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B.) CUSD then proceeded with the present motion. In response, Doe filed a notice of non-opposition stating Doe has no opposition to the Court compelling Meta to comply with CUSDs deposition subpoena. Meta has also filed a notice of non-opposition, stating Meta does not oppose the subpoena if the Court finds Doe lawfully consented to disclosure. But Meta notes CUSD and Doe dispute the mode of production. While CUSD demands the records be produced concurrently to both parties counsel, Doe demands the records be first produced to Does counsel who will then forward any responsive records to CUSD. (Glickman Decl., ¶ 4-5.) But Doe has not made this request in Does notice of non-opposition. Because the Court finds Doe has lawfully consented to the disclosure of Does account data, CUSD is entitled to Metas compliance with the deposition subpoena. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS CUSDs motion. In a separate unopposed motion, Meta requests the Court seal the supporting exhibits for its response to CUSDs motion. To seal records, the Court must expressly find (1) [t]here exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) [t]he overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) [a] substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) [t]he proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) [n]o less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550, subd. (d).) Here, because the supporting exhibits contain identifying and personal information for a minor victim of sexual assault, the court finds Does privacy interests outweigh the right of public access and support sealing the record. The court also finds there is a substantial probability that Does privacy interests would be prejudiced if Does personal information is published. Last, the court finds the request is reasonably tailored to the exhibits that contain Does personal information and no less restrictive means exists to protect Does privacy interests. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Metas motion to seal. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, CUSDs motion to compel is GRANTED and Meta is ordered to provide all records requested to CUSD within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this order. Furthermore, Metas motion to seal is GRANTED.

Ruling

LESLIE KLINGER VS HORIZONS SENIOR APTS/CIRRUS ASSET MANAGEMENT
Jul 15, 2024 | 23VECV05230
Case Number: 23VECV05230 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Dept: 107 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NORTHWEST DISTRICT Leslie Klinger, Plaintiff, v. Leslie Klinger v. Horizons Senior Apts/Cirrus Asset Management, Defendant. Case Number Department 23VECV05230 107 COURTS [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: (1) Demurrer (2) Motion to Strike [THE FOLLOWING IS A TENTATIVE RULING IN THE ABOVE CASE]: Defendants 26705 Malibu Hills Road LLC and Cirrus Asset Management, Inc. demur to the complaint brought by plaintiff Leslie Klinger and move to strike punitive damages from the complaint. This court sustains the demurrer and denies the motion to strike as moot. This court denies Defendants request for judicial notice. I. BACKGROUND On November 22, 2023, plaintiff Leslie Klinger (Plaintiff) filed a form complaint against defendants Malibu Hills Road LLC (Malibu) and Cirrus Asset Management, Inc. (Cirrus and, together with Malibu, Defendants) alleging a single cause of action for intentional tort. On June 6, 2024, Defendants filed a demurrer (the Demurrer) and a motion to strike (the Motion) accompanied by a request for judicial notice. On July 8, 2024, Defendants filed notices of non-opposition (the Replies) to the Demurrer and the Motion, and on July 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed oppositions (the Oppositions) to the Demurrer and the Motion. II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Timeliness of Filings Per California Code of Civil Procedure §¿430.40, subdivision (a), a demurrer to a complaint should be filed within 30 days after service of the complaint. Similarly, per California Code of Civil Procedure §¿435, subdivision (b)(1), a motion to strike should be filed within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, which is 30 days. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §¿412.20, subd. (a)(3).) If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving, on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §¿430.41(a)(2).) Per California Code of Civil Procedure §¿1005, subdivision (b), moving papers should be filed at least 16 court days before they are set for hearing, oppositions thereto should be filed at least nine court days before the set hearing, and replies to any oppositions should be filed at least five court days before the set hearing. Judges have discretion as to whether to consider or strike an untimely demurrer or pleading. ( McAllister v. County of Monterey (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 253, 281; Tuck v. Thuesen (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 193, 196, disapproved on other grounds by Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971) 6 Cal.3d 176.)¿ Plaintiff filed proofs of service indicating that Malibu was personally served on April 9, 2024 and Cirrus was personally served on April 19, 2024. On May 14, 2024, Defendants filed a declaration stating that parties had not been able to meet and confer and seeking an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a demurrer or motion to strike. Thus, the Demurrer and Motion are timely to the extent that they are brought by Cirrus. The Oppositions are untimely, and the Replies are timely. We note that the Replies were filed five court days before the set hearing, on the last day they were permitted to be filed, and that the Oppositions were filed the next day. Because the Oppositions were filed after the Replies, four court days before the hearing, we find that Defendants were not afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the Oppositions. We therefore decline to consider the Oppositions. The Meet and Confer Requirement California Code of Civil Procedure §¿430.41, subdivision (a) and §¿435.5, subdivision (a) requires parties to meet and confer in good faith before the filing of a demurrer or a motion to strike, respectively, to attempt to informally resolve the objections raised in the demurrer or the motion to strike. Each section requires that such meet and confer be done in person or by telephone. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§¿430.1, subd. (a), 435.5, subd. (a).)¿¿¿¿ Defendants submit with the Demurrer and the Motion a declaration by their counsel stating that she made three attempts to contact Plaintiff regarding the issues raised by the Demurrer and the Motion but received no response. (Déziel Decl. ¶¶ 46.) We remind Plaintiff of her obligation to meet and confer with Defendants counsel in good faith. The Request for Judicial Notice Defendants request that this court take judicial notice of the Complaint. The Complaint is already in the record in the instant action and therefore this court does not need to take judicial notice of it. Accordingly, this court DENIES Defendants request for judicial notice. III. DISCUSSION The Demurrer Defendants demur to the only cause of action in the Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to allege a cause of action and that it is uncertain. As a general matter, in a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice.¿( Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)¿A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged. ( E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaints properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. ( Ibid. ) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. ( Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)¿A complaint is sufficient if it contains [a]¿statement¿of the¿facts¿constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §¿425.10(a)(1).) Under this standard, a complaint ordinarily is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts. ( Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.)¿¿¿¿ Demurrers for uncertainty are strictly construed, because discovery can be used for clarification, and apply where defendants cannot reasonably determine what issues or claims are stated. ( Khoury v. Malys of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Against a demurrer, a plaintiff is required only to set forth in his complaint the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant of the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action. ( Elder v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 841, 858.) Plaintiff pleads a single cause of action for intentional tort. (Complaint p. 3.) A handwritten note beside this checkbox reads, May amend to more w. lawyer in future. (Ibid.) On a form attachment for intentional tort, Plaintiff pleads that the tort was committed from 2017 to present and under a section labelled (description of reasons for liability), she writes Harassment and Retaliation [¶] False accusations [¶] No fault eviction Notice [¶] Defamation [¶] Discrimination [¶] Libel [¶] Price Gauging/fraud [¶] Incorrect Notices [¶] Nuisance [¶] Neglect [¶] Breaking civil Pandemic Mandates on Disabled and Senior/Disabled (Continuous). (Id. at p. 5.) On a form attachment for exemplary damages, Plaintiff pleads that the facts supporting [her] claim are Filed and served no fault eviction day before Thanksgiving under Pandemic Mandate. Served false Breach of Contract Notice in front of many neighbors. With email to Horizons and their Attorney, notified, we would like to remain on lease through end of Pandemic Mandate and through end of Mandates, still changed to Mo to Mo and raised rent. Refused directions to place work order for repairs. Called names and frightened me with noise in garage and other odd behavior. Interfered with me off property. Continually targets me. Discrimination of Disability. There is more need lawyer. (Id. at p. 4.) Thus, while the Complaint lists a number of intentional torts on the form attachment for intentional tort, it is unclear which intentional tort or how many intentional torts Plaintiff pleads in the Complaint. Further, it is unclear when each tort or act is alleged to have occurred and against which of the Defendants each claim is brought. Therefore, we find that the nature, source, and extent of the claims being brought against Defendants are so unclear from the Complaint to be understood. Further, in order to state a cause of action for any of the torts listed on the Complaint, Plaintiff must state facts alleging each of the elements of the cause of action for the tort. There are, however, few facts alleged in the Complaint and those that are alleged are so vague and unclear that the nature, source, and extent of the claims being brought against Defendants cannot be understood. Accordingly, this court SUSTAINS the Demurrer. The Motion to Strike Defendants move to strike punitive damages from the Complaint. However, because we sustain the Demurrer, no causes of action remain in the Complaint to support punitive damages. Accordingly, this court DENIES the Motion AS MOOT. Dated: July 15, 2024 _______­­­­­­­­­­___________________________ Hon. Eric Harmon Judge of the Superior Court

Ruling

JENNIFER TU VS MICHELLE GAXIOLA, ET AL.
Jul 18, 2024 | 23NWCV02588
Case Number: 23NWCV02588 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: C TU v. GAXIOLA CASE NO.: 23NWCV02588 HEARING: 07/18/24 #7 Plaintiff JENNIFER TUs unopposed Motion to Set Aside Dismissal under CCP §473(b) is CONTINUED to Thursday, July 25, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C . Moving Party to give notice. No Opposition filed as of July 15, 2024. This personal injury action was filed by Plaintiff on August 21, 2023. On May 30, 2024, Plaintiffs Complaint was dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiffs Counsels second failure to appear without good cause for a Case Management Conference and OSC Re: Dismissal of the Entire Action for Plaintiffs Failure to Appear on 03/28/24. (See 05/30/24 M.O.) Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal under CCP §473(b). The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted &. (emphasis added.) (CCP §473(b).) The Motion is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with the express terms of CCP §473(b). There is no proposed pleading or proposed amended complaint attached to subject Motion. The Motion is CONTINUED as indicated above due to Plaintiffs failure to attach a copy of a pleading proposed to be filed therein as required by CCP §473(b). The terms of the code are mandatory; compliance is not optional. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file and serve a Proposed First Amended Complaint by no later than July 19, 2024.

Ruling

FARRARA, ET AL VS. AIRBNB, INC.
Jul 18, 2024 | CVCV21-0198447
FARRARA, ET AL VS. AIRBNB, INC. Case Number: CVCV21-0198447 Tentative Ruling on Petition to Approve Minor Compromise: Brianna Farrara seeks an order approving the compromise of a claim on behalf of her minor son, Alexander Farrara. California Rules of Court, Rule 7.950 states that a petition for court approval of a minor’s compromise must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise. The Petition provides the required information. Considering the nature of the minor’s injuries and level of recovery and the uncertainty of liability, the Court is prepared to find that the settlement is in the best interest of the minor if the voir dire process is completed to the Court’s satisfaction. The Court notes this is not an expedited petition brought on Judicial Council Form MC-350EX. See CRC Rule 7.950.5. Hearing is thus needed on the Petition before it can be approved. The person seeking approval of the settlement on behalf of the minor and the minor are required to appear at the hearing, unless good cause is presented for their non-appearance. CRC Rule 7.952. The Petitioner and minor are required to appear. Counsel will voir dire the Petitioner about the terms of the settlement, any other potential sources to increase the settlement amount, whether the minor has fully recovered and whether the Petitioner understands that once approved, the settlement is final and binding on the minor. Once satisfied, the Court intends to grant the Petition and set this matter for review for confirmation of deposit of the funds into a court blocked account. An appearance by the Petitioner and minor is necessary on today’s calendar.

Ruling

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY VS JONATHAN CASTILLO
Jul 18, 2024 | 22STCV35033
Case Number: 22STCV35033 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 28 Having considered the documents submitted in support of a request for default judgment, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On November 2, 2022, Plaintiff Progressive Select Insurance Company (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Jonathan Castillo (Defendant) and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort. The complaint demanded $42,352.40. Also on November 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages asserting property damage of $10,252.40 and uninsured motorist bodily injury payments of $32,100.00, for a total of $42,352.40. On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service on Defendant of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on November 20, 2022. On April 16, 2024, the clerk entered Defendants default. On April 22, 2024, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiffs request. Also on April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for default judgment. PLAINTIFFS REQUEST Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant and award Plaintiff $42,871.40, consisting of $42,352.40 as the demand of the complaint and $519.00 in costs. LEGAL STANDARD A. Default judgment [With exceptions that do not apply here,] [a] party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100) . . . The following must be included in the documents filed with the clerk: (1) Except in unlawful detainer cases, a brief summary of the case identifying the parties and the nature of plaintiff's claim; (2) Declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) Interest computations as necessary; (4) A memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) A declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought; (6) A proposed form of judgment; (7) A dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) Exhibits as necessary; and (9) A request for attorney fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a).) B. Damages On a request for default judgment, [w]here a cause of action is stated in the complaint, plaintiff merely needs to introduce evidence establishing a prima facie case for damages. (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 5:213.1, p. 5-56 (Cal. Practice Guide), citing Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361 [trial court erred in applying preponderance of the evidence standard].) The relief granted to a plaintiff upon entry of a defendant's default cannot exceed the amount demanded in the complaint or, for personal injury cases where damages may not be stated in the complaint, the amount listed in the statement of damages. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 580, subd. (a), 585, subd. (b).) The notice requirement of section 580 was designed to insure fundamental fairness. ( Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co . (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494.) The statute insures that defendants in cases which involve a default judgment have adequate notice of the judgments that may be taken against them. [Citation.] If a judgment other than that which is demanded is taken against him, [the defendant] has been deprived of his day in courta right to a hearing on the matter adjudicated. ( Id . at p. 493.) A trial court exceeds its jurisdiction if it awards damages in excess of the amount specified in the complaint or statement of damages. ( Id . at p. 494.) DISCUSSION Plaintiff has submitted a complete default judgment application with all required information. The Court grants the application. CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Progressive Select Insurance Company s application for default judgment filed on April 22, 2024. The Court awards Plaintiff Progressive Select Insurance Company $42,871.40 against Defendant Jonathan Castillo. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Ruling

DANIEL ABRAM VS SOULCYCLE, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.
Jul 16, 2024 | 22STCV00193
Case Number: 22STCV00193 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: B Daniel abram V. soulcycle inc., et al. MOTION to be relieved as counsel Date of Hearing: July 16, 2024 Trial Date: February 3, 2025 Department: B Case No.: 22STCV00193 Moving Party: Counsel for Plaintiff Responding Party: N/A BACKGROUND This case stems from allegations of negligence after Daniel Abram (Plaintiff) participated in a cycling exercise class. Plaintiff files a Complaint against SoulCycle Inc., SoulCycle Beverly Hills, LLC and Lindsay Warner (Defendants). The motion now before the Court is a Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel filed by counsel for Plaintiff, Chet R. Bhavsar. Tentative Ruling Plaintiffs Counsels Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel is GRANTED . DISCUSSION Legal Standard An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a)), MC-052 (Declaration) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c)). The proposed order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) Further, the requisite forms must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) A motion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice the client. ( Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994), 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915 .) Analysis Plaintiffs counsel has provided the Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 and MC-052. All appropriate notice has been given, including to the client which Plaintiffs counsel confirmed by conversation and by telephone. (See MC-052, §3.) Additionally, Plaintiffs counsel provides all upcoming court dates. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs Counsels Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel is GRANTED , effective upon filing of the proof of service of the Order. Moving party to give notice.

Document

Abdishakur Mohammed vs Joseph Theodor Frank Mikalojczyk, Foundation Building Materials, LLC
Jul 18, 2024 | Sande, Christian M | Personal Injury | Personal Injury | 27-CV-24-10789

Document

Shana Williams VS The Kroger, Co.Et Al
Nov 09, 2022 | Lake, Brian E | Personal Injury | 22CV9696

Document

Asha Jackson VS Mammoth Holdings, LLC d/b/a Swifty Car Wash
Apr 15, 2024 | Polk, Nora | Personal Injury | 24CV4148

Document

GREEN VS CVG PHYSICIANS GROUP LLC et al
Apr 26, 2022 | Cope, Veronica | Tort - Medical Malpractice Tort* | Tort - Medical Malpractice Tort* | 22-C-02318-S6

Document

NENDZA VS TAYLOR
Jul 05, 2024 | Smith, Jaletta L. | Tort - Auto Tort* | Tort - Auto Tort* | 24-C-06077-S7

Document

WALDRON VS NGUYEN
Jun 06, 2024 | Cope, Veronica | Tort - Auto Tort* | Tort - Auto Tort* | 24-C-05165-S6

Document

BLANTON VS RIDGEVIEW INSTITUTE ET AL
Feb 13, 2019 | Dove, Erica K. | Tort - Medical Malpractice Tort* | Tort - Medical Malpractice Tort* | 19-C-00939-S5

Document

LIANG VS CHOIYANG
Apr 27, 2021 | Cope, Veronica | Tort - Auto Tort* | Tort - Auto Tort* | 21-C-03268-S6