On March 18, 2019 a
Tentative Ruling
was filed
involving a dispute between
M.D.L.F.,
and
Arrowood, Cindy,
Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive,
Fisher, Diana,
Morongo Unified School District, A Government Entity,
for Personal Injury Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
TENTATIVE RULING
y
‘l ya»
September
I‘ _
FOT' 29, 2021 Sgtgmgggdukgrfiixz :Fowm;
I "»I'~‘S“I -‘n .,':_“ '“
“M“ AF?RNARW:.%
Ezflgdr“
3t“ 29 202;
Department S-28
Judge Lynn M. Poncin By gt? ”/47, /,
.l'
I . . _ I I
?:‘AVAL! WADE. 035W,
If all parties wnsh to submlt on a tentative rullng, no appearance Is reqUIred at the
‘ ‘
hearing, unless specified otherwise in the tentative ruling. If all parties submit, please
notify the Judicial Assistant for Department S-28 (909—708-8698) by 4:00 p.m. the day
before the hearing. In that case, the tentative ruling posted on the Court’s website (or e-
mailed to parties) will automatically become the final ruling of the court.
If you do not wish to submit on a tentative ruling, you must appear for the hearing via
CourtCall or in person. Failure to appear is deemed a waiver of oral argument.
The prevailing party on a motion or other hearing shall serve written notice of the court’s
ruling unless all parties waive notice ofthe ruling.
1. M.D.L.F. v. Morongo Unified School District, et aI.
CIVDS1908236
(1)Judgment on the Pleadings
(2)Severance of Claims
(3)Compel Responses to Interrogatories
(4)Compe| Responses to Request for Production
PROCEDfLRAL/FACML BACKGROLJND
Currently before the Court are four motions filed by Defendants Cindy Arrowood
and Diana Fisher: (1) a motion forjudgment on the pleadings; (2) a motion for
severance; (3) a motion to compel responses to interrogatories; and (4) a motion to
compel responses to requests for production.
Page 1 ofl4
Plaintiff M.D.L.F., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Melinda Fields,
(“Plaintiff") filed this personal injury action against Defendants Morongo Unified School
District (“the District” of “MUSD”), Cindy Arrowood (“Arrowood”), and Diana Fisher
(“Fisher”) (collectively, “Defendants").
On September 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”),
which includes seven causes of action: (1) assault and battery; (2) negligence; (3)
neqliqent infliction of emotional distress (“N|ED"); (4) intentional infliction of emotional
distress (“IIED”); (5) violation ofthe Unruh Act (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (a)); (6) negligent
hirinq. traininq. and supervision: and (7) violation ofthe Ralph Act (id., § 52.7).1
Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action is pleaded against the District only. All other causes of
action are pleaded against Fisher and Arrowood only.
On December 18, 2020, the Court heard Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s third,
fourth, and sixth causes of action. Defendants also move to strike an allegation relating
to a “special relationship.” The Court overruled the demurrer as to the third and fourth
causes of action, and sustained the demurrer as to the sixth cause of action against the
District without leave to amend. The Court ordered the answer due within thirty days of
the date of the hearing. Instead of filing an answer, Defendants Arrowood and Fisher
filed a “second” demurrer to the TAC which the Court found untimely and in violation of
the Court’s December 18, 2020 Order. The Court informed defense counsel a Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings may be filed. (See February 17, 2021 Minute Order.)
Thereafter, on July 27, 2021, Defendants Arrowood and Fisher filed (1) a motion
forjudgment on the pleadings as to the fifth cause of action in the Plaintiffs’ complaint;
‘
Plaintiff elected not to amend his cause of action for violation of the Bane Act.
Page 2 of l4
Document Filed Date
September 29, 2021
Case Filing Date
March 18, 2019
Category
Personal Injury Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
TENTATIVE RULING y ‘l ya» September I‘ _ FOT' 29, 2021 Sgtgmgggdukgrfiixz :Fowm; I "»I'~‘S“I -‘n .,':_“ '“ “M“ AF?RNARW:.% Ezflgdr“ 3t“ 29 202; Department S-28 Judge Lynn M. Poncin By gt? ”/47, /, .l' I . . _ I I ?:‘AVAL! WADE. 035W, If all parties wnsh to submlt on a tentative rullng, no appearance Is reqUIred at the ‘ ‘ hearing, unless specified otherwise in the tentative ruling. If all parties submit, please notify the Judicial Assistant for Department S-28 (909—708-8698) by 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. In that case, the tentative ruling posted on the Court’s website (or e- mailed to parties) will automatically become the final ruling of the court. If you do not wish to submit on a tentative ruling, you must appear for the hearing via CourtCall or in person. Failure to appear is deemed a waiver of oral argument. The prevailing party on a motion or other hearing shall serve written notice of the court’s ruling unless all parties waive notice ofthe ruling. 1. M.D.L.F. v. Morongo Unified School District, et aI. CIVDS1908236 (1)Judgment on the Pleadings (2)Severance of Claims (3)Compel Responses to Interrogatories (4)Compe| Responses to Request for Production PROCEDfLRAL/FACML BACKGROLJND Currently before the Court are four motions filed by Defendants Cindy Arrowood and Diana Fisher: (1) a motion forjudgment on the pleadings; (2) a motion for severance; (3) a motion to compel responses to interrogatories; and (4) a motion to compel responses to requests for production. Page 1 ofl4 Plaintiff M.D.L.F., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Melinda Fields, (“Plaintiff") filed this personal injury action against Defendants Morongo Unified School District (“the District” of “MUSD”), Cindy Arrowood (“Arrowood”), and Diana Fisher (“Fisher”) (collectively, “Defendants"). On September 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), which includes seven causes of action: (1) assault and battery; (2) negligence; (3) neqliqent infliction of emotional distress (“N|ED"); (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (5) violation ofthe Unruh Act (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (a)); (6) negligent hirinq. traininq. and supervision: and (7) violation ofthe Ralph Act (id., § 52.7).1 Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action is pleaded against the District only. All other causes of action are pleaded against Fisher and Arrowood only. On December 18, 2020, the Court heard Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s third, fourth, and sixth causes of action. Defendants also move to strike an allegation relating to a “special relationship.” The Court overruled the demurrer as to the third and fourth causes of action, and sustained the demurrer as to the sixth cause of action against the District without leave to amend. The Court ordered the answer due within thirty days of the date of the hearing. Instead of filing an answer, Defendants Arrowood and Fisher filed a “second” demurrer to the TAC which the Court found untimely and in violation of the Court’s December 18, 2020 Order. The Court informed defense counsel a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings may be filed. (See February 17, 2021 Minute Order.) Thereafter, on July 27, 2021, Defendants Arrowood and Fisher filed (1) a motion forjudgment on the pleadings as to the fifth cause of action in the Plaintiffs’ complaint; ‘ Plaintiff elected not to amend his cause of action for violation of the Bane Act. Page 2 of l4