Tentative ruling on Jul. 10, 2024 in Butte County, CA - Case no: xxxxx057

19CV00855 Weston, Caryl Lynn v. State of California Department of Transportation, et al. EVENT: Defendants California Department of Transportation and Mark Allen Lawson’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint Defendants California Department of Transportation and Mark Allen Lawson’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall amend within 20 days of this order. The Court acknowledges the First Amended Complaint alleges compliance with claim presentation requirements. Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted. Per Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 376, it is clear the Court can take judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c) that the entity’s records do not show compliance when the pleading alleges compliance. Further, the Court notes that in the context of the issue raised, the contents of the claim and the attached police report have significance independent of their truth. The issue is not whether the police report is true or accurate, the issue is whether the contents of the claim, whether true or not, are consistent with the allegations in the FAC. Before addressing that issue, Plaintiff argues the issue is waived pursuant to Government Code section 911. Gov. Code § 911. 3|Page Any defense as to the sufficiency of the claim based upon a defect or omission in the claim as presented is waived by failure to give notice of insufficiency with respect to the defect or omission as provided in Section 910.8, except that no notice need be given and no waiver shall result when the claim as presented fails to state either an address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent or an address of the claimant. As Defendants noted, the insufficiency of plaintiff's claim lies in its failure to set forth the factual basis for recovery alleged in the complaint. (See Donohue v. State of California, (1986) 178 Cal. App. 3d 795, 805) Thus Gov. Code § 911 is inapplicable. Regarding the issue of material variance, the Court is unaware of any case law where material variance was found in omitting allegations which were present in the claim. All cases reviewed involve an addition or change from the claim to the complaint. Here, we are presented with an unusual situation where certain content in the claim was omitted. The Court finds a material variance exists when the complaint omits a material allegation from the claim. In other words, a variance is a variance, whether it is the result of addition or omission. Further, the omission was material. Many California cases have established that the plain purposes of the public liability claim statutes are to require notice of the circumstances of an injury upon which a claim for damages is made, so that municipal authorities may be in a position to investigate the facts as to the time and place, and to make proper investigation of the condition of the premises and decide whether the case is one for settlement or litigation. Johnson v. Oakland, (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 181, 183 [Emphasis Added] From the City’s perspective, it was impossible to evaluate the claim considering 1) the police report concludes Plaintiff was at fault and 2) there is no further explanation from Plaintiff in the claim as to why the conclusions of the officer are incorrect. Simply put, the claim does not put Defendants on notice in a meaningful way as to why they are liable and Defendants cannot reasonably evaluate the claim as presented. Consequently, the demurrer is sustained. Regarding Plaintiff’s estoppel argument, the FAC alleges no facts supporting an estoppel theory. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to allege facts supporting an estoppel theory. Plaintiff shall prepare and submit the for of order within 10 days. 4|Page ||8. 24CV01502 In re: the Petition of DV EVENT: Petition for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement (Continued from 6/26/24 and 7/10/24) The Court will conduct a hearing. 5|Page

17CV03587 Unipan, Mark v. Reetz, Kimberly et al EVENT: Defendant Kimberly Reetz’s Motion for Order Vacating Void Judgment Defendant Kimberly Reetz’s Motion for Order Vacating Void Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The moving papers do not include a proof of service indicating Plaintiff was served with this motion and pursuant to the requirements of CCP § 1005 et seq. The Court will prepare the order.

23CV03574 HOBBS, JOY V. GORI III, TRENTO EVENT: Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted Defendant provided responses to the Requests for Admission by way of the “Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted” that was filed on July 15, 2024. However, the responses therein are unverified and therefore not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure §2033.220. The Court orders that Defendant shall provide verified (under penalty of perjury) Code-compliant responses within 30 days’ to be served on the Plaintiff, not filed with the Court. The Motion is denied. The Court will prepare the form of order.

21CV01399 BELTRAMO, KEN ET AL V. BYERS, CHRISTOPHER ET AL EVENT: Defendants’ Motion for Continuance of Settlement Conference The Motion is unopposed and is granted. The Court vacates the Mandatory Settlement Conference on December 9, 2024, and resets the Mandatory Settlement Conference for November 22, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. with Judge Heithecker via Zoom. Counsel for the Defendants shall submit a form of order consistent with this ruling within two weeks.

24CV00795 STIEFVATER, RYAN J ET AL V. STIEFVATER, GARY G ET AL EVENT: Motion for Order Compelling Ryan J. Stiefvater, Trustee of the Ryan J. Stiefvater Revocable Trust of 2021 to Serve a Further Answer to Interrogatory 115.1 and for Sanctions Court finds that Form Interrogatory No. 115.1 is not duplicative or overbroad and the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide a further verified response without objection to Form Interrogatory No. 115.1 within 10 days’ notice of this ruling. Sanctions are 1 awarded against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000, to be paid within 30 days’ notice of this ruling. Counsel for the Defendant shall submit a form of order within two weeks.

22CV03048 Cortez, Alberto C v. Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc EVENT: Status Conference The Court is in receipt of the status conference report. A further Case Management Conference is hereby scheduled for November 20, 2024 at 10:30am.

24CV01802 In re: Cervantes, Martin Gaona EVENT: Change of name (minor) There is no proof of service on the biological parents as required by CCP § 1277(f)(1). Unless Petitioner can provide legal authority to the contrary, there is no language in CCP § 1277 indicating termination of parental rights is an exception to the requirement that the biological parents be served. The Court will hear from Petitioner. 1 4-||5. 20CV00578 Holman, Ryan v. County of Butte et al. EVENT: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE On the Court’s motion, Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue is continued to December 4, 2024 at 9:00am. Per CCP § 916, an appeal stays trial proceedings including proceedings which are affected by the judgment. The motion is premature at this stage in light of the appeal filed by Plaintiff. Should the appeal be resolved sooner, Plaintiff may file a request to advance the hearing to an earlier time. MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial is DENIED. After careful consideration of the moving papers, the Court finds no grounds under CCP § 657. The Court will prepare the order.

24CV01641 IN RE: MAROFSKY, NIREL SIMCHA EVENT: Petition for Change of Name If proper proof of publication is submitted at or before the hearing, the Petition will be granted. 2|Page

23CV01461 GLOVER, BENNY ET AL V. FCA US LLC EVENT: Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts and Imposing Monetary Sanctions Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts and Imposing Monetary Sanctions is denied as moot, Plaintiffs having subsequently received Code compliant responses. However, Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is granted, the Court finding that Plaintiffs were forced to seek this relief prior to Defendant providing such Code compliant responses without substantial justification. The Court awards sanctions against Defendant’s counsel of record, Clark Hill LLP, in the amount of $868.20, which are to be paid within 30 days’ notice of this ruling. Counsel for the Plaintiffs shall submit a form of order consistent with this ruling within two weeks.