YOUSSEF v. 5D BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
CASE NO.: VC064688
HEARING: 09/21/17
JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER
#4
TENTATIVE ORDER
Defendants JOHN HANSEN, RON HUDSON, SUPERIOF WALL SYSTEMS, INC. and SWS PANEL AND TRUSS, INC.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend in part, DENIED in part, and MOOT in part. CCP §438.
Moving Party to give Notice.
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence of the document, but not as to any hearsay statements contained therein. (Cal. Ev. Code §452.)
.
This action was filed in March 2015, and concerns a dispute among members of a joint venture, Defendant 5D BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. Plaintiff’s SAC, filed April 4, 2017, asserts the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Director/Minority Shareholder; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Joint Venturer; (3) Breach of Oral Contract; (4) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (5) Negligent Interference with Prospecti
Hearing Date
September 21, 2017
Type
Other Intentional Tort-notPI/WD/PD (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
YOUSSEF v. 5D BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
CASE NO.: VC064688
HEARING: 09/21/17
JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER
#4
TENTATIVE ORDER
Defendants JOHN HANSEN, RON HUDSON, SUPERIOF WALL SYSTEMS, INC. and SWS PANEL AND TRUSS, INC.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend in part, DENIED in part, and MOOT in part. CCP §438.
Moving Party to give Notice.
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence of the document, but not as to any hearsay statements contained therein. (Cal. Ev. Code §452.)
.
This action was filed in March 2015, and concerns a dispute among members of a joint venture, Defendant 5D BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. Plaintiff’s SAC, filed April 4, 2017, asserts the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Director/Minority Shareholder; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Joint Venturer; (3) Breach of Oral Contract; (4) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (5) Negligent Interference with Prospecti