NOTICE
To request a hearing on any matter on this
calendar, you must call the Court at (916) 874-7848
(Department 54) by 4:30 p.m. today. Local rule 31(h). If
no call is made the tentative ruling becomes the order of
the court.
TENTATIVE RULINGS
Department 54
Superior Court of California
800 H Street
Joe S. Gray, Judge
Barbara Baldy, Clerk
R. Sanchez-Jacobo, Bailiff
February 4, 2000, 09:00
ITEM 1 98AS04538 WILLIAM CLARKE, ET AL VS. PACIFIC WINDOW CORPORATION, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel
Filed By:
The motion to compel answers to deposition questions asked of William
Clarke is granted.
Monetary sanctions of $1,240.00 are awarded to defendant from Mr. Clarke
for unsuccessfully opposing the motion.
The motion to compel answers to deposition questions asked of Lisa Adams
is granted. Ms. Adams can answer the questions.
Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,343.75 are awarded to defendant
from Lisa Adams for unsuccessfully opposing the motion.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, nor is further notice of this ruling required.
***
ITEM 2 98AS06100 J. ALAN CATES VS. CALIF STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO COMPEL
Filed By: PERKINS, ROBIN
The motion to compel further answers to special interrogatories is
granted, except as to #20, which is granted except as to those documents
which are in Ms. Hicks personnel records.
The motion to compel production of documents set forth in the privilege
log is denied as to the documents sought on page 34 of plaintiff's
separate statement. The motion is also denied as to Darlene Hicks, Dale
Lee and Rafael Rivera, who have been identified as having peace officer
status. Any request for their records must be made pursuant to a
"Pitchess" motion. The motion is otherwise granted, subject to the
records regarding invididuals being produced pursuant to the usual terms
of a protective order, e.g., the records are not to be used or disclosed
outside of this litigation, with any copies being returned to the
defendants after the case is over.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, nor is further notice of this ruling required.
Department 54
February 4, 2000
Page 2
_________________
***
ITEM 3 99AS01102 PAMELA J. GRIFFIN, ET AL VS. ROSEBUD HORSE BEDDING, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO COMPEL
Filed By: FARNWORTH, KEVIN G.
Dropped.
***
ITEM 4 99AS01614 TICON CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS. SAN JUAN UNIF SCH DIST, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO COMPEL
Filed By: MCELHERN, SCOTT D.
The motion to compel further answers to interrogatories and request for
production of documents is granted. The request for a continuance is
denied.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, nor is further notice of this ruling required.
***
ITEM 5 99AS02024 TOMMIE CANTU, ET AL VS. KMART CORPORATION, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO COMPEL
Filed By: WAGNER, DARRYL L.
Since the supplemental response served on December 6, 1999, was not
verified, nor was the Amended Answer to Special Interrogatories faxed by
counsel's office on December 29, 1999, the motion technically should be
a motion to compel a response, since an unverified response is
tantamount to no response at all. An unverified response that begins
with objections but then purports to answer "without waiving said
objections", has waived the objections, especially when no privilege log
accompanies the response, as required by the code. Assuming the answer
would have been the same if verified, the Court treats the motion as
being one to compel a further verified answer to Special Interrogatory
#2.
The motion to compel a further response is granted. Defendants are in a
better position to obtain the information sought by plaintiffs through
the special interrogatory since it is defendants' insurers who have the
information. It does not matter than no complaints or claims have been
made by consumers against defendants, since the information relayed by
defense counsel indicates the retailers of defendants' product are
requesting defense regarding claims against the retailers for this same
product. Declaratory relief actions by these retailers because of
suits against them regarding the product would tend to show knowledge by
the company of previous claims of defects against the product. Such
evidence would be relevant in this product liability action.
The further response should be served no later than Friday, February
18th, 2000.
Sanctions of $1,028 are awarded to plaintiffs from defendants.
Plaintiffs' counsel is reminded that this Court encourages telephone
appearances by out of town counsel. If such is desired, counsel is to
contact the Court clerk in department 54 to make the necessary
arrangements.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, nor is further notice of this ruling required.
Department 54
February 4, 2000
Page 3
_________________
***
ITEM 6 99AS02942 PEOPLE OF CA. VS. KENNETH L. KAUFFMAN, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Filed By: MOSLEY, MOLLY K.
Continued to 02/15/2000
***
ITEM 7 99AS03854 MARK STEVEN SMITH V.S. PACIFIC STAR COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO TERMINATE SANCTIONS
Filed By: SHARPE, VALERIE L.
The motion is dropped from the Court's calendar. The file shows
plaintiff dismissed the entire action on November 10, 1999. The Court
therefore no longer has jurisdiction over this matter. The order of
December 14, 1999, is hereby vacated due to the dismissal noted above.
***
ITEM 8 99AS04198 SHONA LATIMER VS. MICHAEL HADDAD, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: DEMURRER/MOTION TO STRIKE
Filed By: JARRET, R. DOUGLAS
The Court denies the request for judicial notice. The Court will not
allow defendant to convert the demurrer into a motion for summary
judgment. Defendants characterization of their conduct as plaintiff's
merely misjudging the cues of the courting dance, and their
characterization of plaintiff's motives in filing the complaint as being
prompted by the realization "she may be able to make some money", are
both inappropriate on demurrer and ignored by the Court.
The demurrers to the first, second, third and fourth causes of action
are overruled. Plaintiff has plead the facts necessary for these causes
of action.
The motions to strike are granted as to the fifth cause of action. The
motions are otherwise denied.
Defendants are to file and serve their answers no later than Monday,
February 14th, 2000.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, nor is further notice of this ruling required.
Department 54
February 4, 2000
Page 4
_________________
***
ITEM 9 99AS04386 RANDALL STEVENS VS. PARATRANSIT, INC.
Nature of Proceeding: DEMURRER
Filed By: ELDER, KEVIN L.
Under the facts alleged, no duty is found. The demurrer is therefore
sustained without leave to amend.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, nor is further notice of this ruling required.
***
ITEM 10 99AS05402 MARTHA MERRITT, ET AL VS. SUTTE/CHS CENTRAL, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Filed By: CICALA, ANGELE K.
Dropped.
***
ITEM 11 99CS02720 SUSAN A. ROSENBERG VS. CA HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: PETITION FOR LATE CLAIM
Filed By: DONALD MASUDA
The petition is granted.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, nor is further notice of this ruling required.
***
ITEM 12 98AM06802 WENDEL R. FLINT VS. MICHAEL CARRIGAN, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: PETITION TO CONFIRM ARB AWARD
Filed By: FLINT, WENDEL ROBERT
The Petition to confirm the arbitration award is granted. Plaintiff is
to submit a judgment for the Court's signature, to department 54, no
later than Wednesday, February 9th, 2000. C.C.P. 1287.4.
This minute order is effective immediately.
Department 54
February 4, 2000
Page 5
_________________
***
ITEM 13 99AM03608 NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC. VS. MICHELLE KAY PARSONS, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: CLAIM OF EXEMPTION
Filed By: SIMMONS, FRANK C.
The judgment was for medical bills, which are a necessity of life. The
exemption does not apply to necessaries. The claim of exemption is
therefore denied. If there is an appearance at the hearing, the burden
of proof is on the debtor.
***
ITEM 14 99AM06304 NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC. VS. ADAM G. STRINGFELLOW
Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED/SANCTIONS
Filed By: SIMMONS, FRANK C.
Plaintiff's motion is granted. The Request for Admissions, set one,
served on defendant Adam G. Stringfellow, are deemed admitted.
Mandatory sanctions of $250.00 are awarded to plaintiff from defendant.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, however plaintiff is to notify defendant of the
Court's ruling forthwith.
***
ITEM 15 99AM07265 CHARLES STRECKER VS. JULIUS ENGEL, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: DEMURRER/MOT TO STRIKE/DISQUALI ATT
Filed By: ENGEL, JULIUS M.
The demurrers to the first and second causes of action are overruled.
The complaint alleges facts sufficient to constitute these causes of
action. Furthermore, the special demurrers are dropped, as they are not
allowed in a limited civil action. C.C.P. 92.
The demurrers to the third cause of action, waste, are sustained without
leave to amend. There are no allegations that there has been any
permanent diminishment or depreciation in the value of the property.
Rowe v Wells Fargo Realty Service, Inc. (1985) 166 C.A.3d 310.
The demurrers to the fourth cause of action, libel, are sustained
without leave to amend. C.C. 47(b)(2).
The request to stay this action due to defendants prior bankruptcy is
denied.
The motion to strike the entire complaint is denied. The motion to
strike exhibits "C" and "D" is granted. The motion is otherwise denied.
The special motion to strike is denied. Plaintiff's request for
attorney fees is granted. The Court finds the special motion to strike
is both frivolous and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.
C.C.P. 425.16(c). Attorney fees of $875 are awarded to plaintiff from
defendant.
Defendants' motion to disqualify the Law Office of Rosenberg & Link, and
Sid M. Rosenberg is denied.
Defendant is to file an answer to the first amended complaint no later
than Monday, February 14th, 2000.
Although the letters sent by defendants, and the pleadings filed by
them, cannot be the basis for a claim of libel, due to the litigation
privilege, the Court still controls the processes and pleadings that are
filed by the parties to this action. The irrelevant and scurrilous ad
hominem attacks on plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel by defendants are
not relevant, not necessary and completely unprofessional in defending
this action. Defendants are to not file any further papers in this
action which contain ad hominem attacks on plaintiff or plaintiff's
counsel without first obtaining the Court's permission, and if obtained,
the documents are to be sealed by the Clerk of the Court. Defendants
are further advised to read C.C.P. 128.7(b) and (c)(2).
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, nor is further notice of this ruling required.
Department 54
February 4, 2000
Page 6
_________________
***
