Tentative Rulings Department 54 of California August 19, 2003





                                        NOTICE                               
                                                                             
              To request a hearing on any matter on this                    
     calendar, you must call the Court at (916) 874-7848                    
     (Department 54) by 4:00 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 Ninth Street, 3rd Floor               
                            Brian R. Van Camp, Judge
                                B. Frates, Clerk
                              J. Hancock, Bailiff
                             August 19, 2003, 09:00

     ITEM  1  02AS01324 GENEVIVE GILLESPIE VS. H. LEE HORNER                        
              Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Withdraw Atty of Rec     
              Filed By: T ALLMAN, GARTH T.                               


         The motion to withdraw is unopposed and is granted.  The Court will 
     sign the formal order submitted with the moving papers.                 

     ***

     ITEM  2  02AS03236 GARY A. BANICKI, ET AL VS. DUARTE M. NEVES, ET AL           
              Nature of Proceeding: MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT DETERMINATION              
              Filed By: COTTER, BARBARA A.                               


         Defendant Randy Stoker's motion for good faith settlement is        
     unopposed and is granted.  The Court will sign the formal order         
     submitted with the moving papers.                                       

     ***

     ITEM  3  02AS06526 DIANA MEYERSTEIN VS. PATRICIA BRITNOFF                      
              Nature of Proceeding: Summary Judgment                   
              Filed By: CURTIS, LANCE J.                               


         Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.                  
                                                                             
         The complaint alleges one cause of action for negligence arising    
     from an automobile accident that occurred on June 21, 2001.  Plaintiff  
     alleges that she engaged in settlement negotiations with defendant's    
     insurance carrier from January 2002 through and past June 21, 2002, and 
     was never advised about the statute of limitations until a letter from  
     defendant's insurance carrier in August 2002.                           
         Defendant contends the complaint is barred by the statute of        
     limitations because her insurance carrier advised plaintiff of the      
     one-year limitations period in correspondence dated January 8, 2002 and 
     May 16, 2002.  Exhibits D and F to Curtis declaration.  Plaintiff's     
     hearsay objection to the letters is overruled as the letters are        
     operative facts and not subject to the hearsay rule.  E.g. Weathers v.  
     Kaiser Foundaiton Hospitals (1971) 5 Cal.3d 98, 109.  Plaintiff's       
     objections on the ground of lack of foundation are sustained.  As the   
     letters constitute the only evidence submitted by defendant on the issue
     of whether plaintiff was informed about the statute of limitations,     
     defendant has failed to meet her initial burden, and the burden does not
     shift to plaintiff to produce evidence raising a triable issue of       
     material fact.                                                          
         The Court notes that, even had the burden shifted, plaintiff's      
     declaration that she never received the letters is sufficient to raise a
     triable issue of material fact, as the Court does not decide issues of  
     credibility on a motion for summary judgment.                           
         Plaintiff shall submit a formal order complying with CCP section    
     437c(g) and CRC Rule 391 for the Court's signature.                     



     Department 54
     August 19, 2003
     Page  2
     _______________


     ***

     ITEM  4  02AS07370 TED COX, ET AL VS. PEPPERWOOD KNOLL APARTMENTS, ET AL       
              Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Strike                   
              Filed By: HENSLEY, LAWRENCE N.                               


         Defendants JMK Investments, Inc., Bernard F. Rubin                  
     Trustee/Conservator and Helen Rubin Trustee/Conservator of the Bernard  
     F. and Helen Rubin Living Trust's motion to strike is denied.           
                                                                             
         Defendants have withdrawn their motion to strike based on the       
     lateness of the filing of the amended complaint.  Further, plaintiffs   
     have stipulated to remove references to the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act and the Unruh Act, and request for attorney fees pursuant to CC     
     section 52.  The remaining issue is whether references to decedent's    
     walking disability should be stricken because the only cause of action  
     that remains is negligence.  The Court is persuaded that such references
     are germane to the issue of whether defendants were negligent in        
     undertaking an accomodation to decedent.                                
                                                                             
         Plaintiffs may file and serve their amended complaint (pursuant to  
     the above stipulation) no later than August 29, 2003.                   
                                                                             
         The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant
     to CRC Rule 391 or further notice is required.                          
                                                                             
                                                                             

     ***

     ITEM  5  03AS00534 GARY ABBOTT VS. SIERRA VISTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL 
              Nature of Proceeding: Demurrer                           
              Filed By: ANDERSON, LAURA A.                               


         Defendant Harold Segal M.D. filed a motion to change venue on the   
     same date as the demurrer and motion to strike.  The Court's            
     jurisdiction was suspended until the motion to change venue was heard on
     August 13, 2003, and thus plaintiff has not had sufficient opportunity  
     to file opposition to the demurrer and motion to strike.  Therefore,    
     defendant is directed to obtain a new hearing date from the calendar    
     clerk in Dept. 54 and serve an amended notice.                          



     Department 54
     August 19, 2003
     Page  3
     _______________


     ***

     ITEM  6  03AS00534 GARY ABBOTT, VS. SIERRA VISTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,      
              Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO STRIKE                   
              Filed By: ANDERSON, LAURA A.                               


     See ruling in item 5.                                                   
                                                                             

     ***

     ITEM  7  03AS01462 KIMBERLY HOLMES VS. KENNETH M. SHENKEL                      
              Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel                   
              Filed By: SCHADE, EDWARD A.                               


     Dropped. 

                                                                             
                                                                             

     ***

     ITEM  8  03AS01948 JAMIE HART, ET AL. VS. MERCY GENERAL HOSPITAL, ET AL.       
              Nature of Proceeding: MOT TO CONS PET TO COMP ARB        
              Filed By: PIERROU, YVONNE M.                               


         The motion to consolidate arbitration petitions will be heard in    
     Dept. 47 at 9:30 a.m.                                                   

     ***

     ITEM  9  03AS01949 BRANDON HART, ETAL VS. MERCY GENERAL HOSPITAL,ETAL          
              Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO CONSOL PETITION TO COMPEL ARB                     
              Filed By: PIERROU, YVONNE M.                               


         The motion to consolidate arbitration petitions will be heard in    
     Dept. 47 at 9:30 a.m.                                                   

     ***



     Department 54
     August 19, 2003
     Page  4
     _______________

     ITEM 10  03AS03334 CITY OF PLEASANTON VS. CITY AND CO OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL  
              Nature of Proceeding: Demurrer                           
              Filed By: LEE, JONATHAN U.                               


         Defendant City & County of San Francisco's demurrer to the complaint
     of plaintiff City of Pleasanton, which the court construes as a general 
     and special demurrer, is ruled upon as follows.                         
                                                                             
         Defendant's demurrer to the first cause of action, breach of        
     contract, is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts   
     sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  The complaint is uncertain 
     as to whether the contract is written, oral or implied in fact.  If     
     written, the contract is neither alleged verbatim nor attached to the   
     complaint.                                                              
                                                                             
         Defendant's demurrer to the second cause of action, promissory      
     estoppel, is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts   
     sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  Plaintiff relies on Hilltop
     Properties v. State of California (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 349.  As        
     defendant points out, however, in that case plaintiff's reliance on the 
     state's promises rendered some of his property worthless.  Here,        
     however, although plaintiff alleges that in reliance on defendant's     
     promises it approved development plans, plaintiff does not allege how   
     that action was detrimental.  Moreover, plaintiff does not allege that  
     the promises were made by persons authorized to contract.               
                                                                             
         Defendant's demurrer to the third cause of action, breach of        
     mandatory duty, is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state   
     facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  Plaintiff does not   
     allege the basis of the duty, whether in statute or tort.  If the breach
     of duty is a contractual one, the claim is duplicative of the first     
     cause of action.                                                        
                                                                             
         Defendant's demurrer to the fourth cause of action, constructive    
     trust, is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts      
     sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  The complaint does not     
     allege fraud or breach of fiduciary duty or any other act that would    
     entitle plaintiff to the $126 million defendant received from the sale  
     of land that plaintiff alleges was owned by defendant.  See Michaelian  
     v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1114.              
                                                                             
         Defendant's demurrer to the fifth cause of action, declaratory      
     relief, is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts     
     sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  Given the court's ruling on
     defendant's demurrer to the first cause of action, the subject matter of
     a declaration is no longer present in the complaint.                    
                                                                             
         Defendant's motion to strike portions of the complaint is denied.   
     There is no notice of motion to strike in the court file.  CCP section  
     435.                                                                    
                                                                             
         Defendant's request for judicial notice is denied.                  
                                                                             
         Plaintiff may file and serve an amended complaint no later than     
     August 29, 2003.  Defendant may file and serve a response no later than 
     September 8, 2003.                                                      
                                                                             
         The notice of motion does not provide notice of the court's         
     tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 3.04(D).  Moving      
     counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith and advise    
     them of Local Rule 3.04 and the court's tentative ruling procedure and  
     the manner of requesting a hearing.  Moving counsel is ordered to appear
     in person or by telephone in the event that opposing counsel appears for
     the hearing without prior request.                                      
                                                                             
         This minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order        
     pursuant to CRC rule 391 or other notice is required.                   
                                                                             



     Department 54
     August 19, 2003
     Page  5
     _______________


     ***

     ITEM 11  03CS00808 THE PEOPLE OF THE CAL VS. $425.00 (CAPNTER)                 
              Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Strike                   
              Filed By: LEONARD, STEPHANIE                               


         This matter is continued on the Court's own motion to August 27,    
     2003.                                                                   

     ***

     ITEM 12  03CS00986 IN RE: DANIEL RAY EMERST                                    
              Nature of Proceeding: Petition For Change Of Name        
              Filed By: EMERT, DANIEL RAY                               


         The petition is unopposed and is granted.                           
                                                                             

     ***

     ITEM 13  03CS01074 WALID ABOULHOSN VS. DANYAL TAUQIR JILANI                    
              Nature of Proceeding: PETITION FOR CANCELLATIONS OF LIEN                          
              Filed By: TROST, THOMAS G.                               


         The petition for cancellation of mechanic's lien is unopposed and is
     granted on condition that proof of service complying with CC section    
     3154(d) is filed prior to hearing.                                      

     ***

     ITEM 14  02AM01898 JERRY EDWARDS VS. JUAN SANTILLAN, ET AL                     
              Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO RECLASSIFY                                        
              Filed By: HENDRICKS, JONATHAN A.                               


         Plaintiff's motion to reclassify is treated as a motion pursuant to 
     CCP section 403.040 and is granted subject to the procedures set forth  
     in CCP section 403.040 (d).                                             

     ***



     Department 54
     August 19, 2003
     Page  6
     _______________

     ITEM 15  03AM00504 PRASEUTH LEE VS. CHE CHE ROOT                               
              Nature of Proceeding: Default Hearing                    
              Filed By: MASUDA, ROBERT                               


                                                                             
     Appearance Required.                                                    

     ***

     ITEM 16  99AM01674 MICHAEL RADU, ET AL VS. MILDRED RYLAND                      
              Nature of Proceeding: MOTION IMPOSING TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS          
              Filed By: QUADROS, RANDEL J.                               


     Dropped. 

                                                                             
                                                                             

     ***