Tentative Rulings Department 53 of California October 15, 2003





                                                                             
                                 NOTICE:                                     
                                                                             
      To request limited oral argument on any matter on this                
                                                                             
     calendar, you must call the Court at (916) 874-7858                    
                                                                             
     (Department 53) by 4:00 p.m. the day before this hearing               
                                                                             
     and advise opposing counsel. Local rule 31(h). If no                   
     call                                                                    
     is made the tentative ruling becomes the order of                      
     the                                                                     
     court.                                                                  
                                                                             


                                TENTATIVE RULINGS                         

                                 Department  53
                          Superior Court of California              
                          800 Ninth Street, 3rd Floor               
                           JEFFREY L. GUNTHER, Judge
                                 T. WEST, Clerk
                              L. STEWART, Bailiff
                            October 15, 2003, 02:00

     ITEM  1  00AS05277 LAWRENCE H. CASSIDY VS. PRICE COMPANY                       
              Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Strike                   
              Filed By: LARSEN, LARRY C.                               


     Continued to October 15, 2003 for oral argument.                        
                                                                             
          Cross-defendant's motion to strike attorneys' fees from the        
     complaint is granted.                                                   
                                                                             
          In its opposition, cross-complainant argues it is basing its       
     request for attorneys' fees on specific statutes which permit such      
     recovery.  These statutes apply only when certain facts are present in  
     claims involving trespass, waste, removal of timber, etc.               
     Cross-complainant has not alleged the existence of any of these facts.  
                                                                             
          Cross complainant is given leave to amend to state facts, if it    
     can, showing it has a statutory right to attorneys fees.                
                                                                             
          Any amended pleading shall be filed and served by October 24, 2003.
     Responsive pleadings shall be filed 10 days thereafter, 15 days if      
     service is by mail.                                                     
                                                                             
          This minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order is    
     required, the tentative ruling being sufficient notice.                 
                                                                             



     Department 53
     October 15, 2003
     Page  2
     ________________


     ***

     ITEM  2  01AS04357 ERIC SCHNETZ, ET AL VS. LUE ENTERPRISES CUSTOM HOMES, INC.  
              Nature of Proceeding: MOTION DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT               
              Filed By: MCELROY, JULIE D.                               


         Cross-defendant's A-Spencer Plastering's Motion for Determination of
     Good Faith Settlement is granted.                                       
                                                                             
         Moving party has established that the settlement with the general   
     contractor for $10,000 is reasonable and within the standards of the    
     Tech-Bilt case.  The settlement covers most of the cost of restuccoing  
     the entire house, even though moving party is only alleged to have      
     covered up the negligence of the window installers on a portion of the  
     house.  Cross-defendant Robert M. Preddy challenges moving party's      
     statement that the cross-defendants are solvent, referring to his 1998  
     bankruptcy.  He also objects to the basis for the attorney's            
     declaration. However, he has not provided any evidence that the         
     settlement is disproportionate to moving party's liability.  Preddy has 
     failed to meet his burden to establish that the settlement is "out of   
     the ballpark" and in bad faith.  Tech-Bilt, Inc. v Woodward Clyde &     
     Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.  The supplemental declaration of Home 
     further establishes the good faith of the settlement.                   
                                                                             
         Moving party to prepare a formal order pursuant to CRC 391.         

     ***

     ITEM  3  01AS04623 KRISTY HILER, ET AL VS. RICHARD HILL, ET AL                 
              Nature of Proceeding: Motion To File Amended Complai     
              Filed By: SETTE, FREDERICK J.                               


     Plaintiff's Motion to File an Amended Complaint Seeking Punitive Damages
     is GRANTED.                                                             
                                                                             
     Civil Code section 3294 provides: "In an action for the breach of an    
     obligation not arising from contract, where the defendant has been      
     guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied, the         
     plaintiff, in  addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for  
     the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant."             
                                                                             
     In opposition to the motion for leave to amend, defendants contend that 
     the proposed amended complaint fails to  allege sufficient facts  to    
     support the conclusion that defendant's conduct constituted             
     "oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied," within the meaning  
     of section 3294. Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal. App. 3d 864, 872.  
                                                                             
     The proposed amended complaint alleges, inter alia, that Hill consumed  
     alcohol and then negligently and recklessly operated a watercraft with  
     conscious disregard of the safety of others as he was aware of the      
     probable dangerous consequences of towing plaintiff behind the          
     watercraft yet willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those         
     consequences.                                                           
                                                                             
     One who wilfully consumes alcoholic beverages to the point of           
     intoxication, knowing that he thereafter must operate a motor vehicle,  
     thereby combining sharply impaired physical and mental faculties with a 
     vehicle capable of great force and speed, reasonably may be held to     
     exhibit a conscious disregard of the safety of others.  The allowance of
     punitive damages in such cases may well be appropriate because of       
     another reason, namely, to deter similar future conduct.  Civil Code    
     section 3294 expressly provides that punitive damages may be recovered  
     "for the sake of example."   Taylor v. Superior Court of Los Angeles    
     County (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 890, 897.                                      
                                                                             
     In light of this precedent, and the deposition testimony of Hammond     
     (Exh. B, 22:11-16 ) and the declaration of the forensic toxicologist    
     based upon that testimony, the Court finds that sufficient facts have   
     been alleged and provided in discovery to support a claim for punitive  
     damages.                                                                
                                                                             
     Plaintiff shall file and serve the First Amended Complaint not later    
     than Friday, October 24, 2003.  The defendants' responsive pleadings are
     due filed and served not later than Tuesday, November 4, 2003.          
                                                                             
     This minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order nor further
     notice is required, the tentative ruling providing sufficient notice.   
                                                                             
                                                                             
     4623202                                                                 
                                                                             
                                                                             



     Department 53
     October 15, 2003
     Page  3
     ________________


     ***

     ITEM  4  02AS01287 NAZARIA NGUYEN VS. ROBERT DEL RE, ET AL                     
              Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Withdraw Atty of Rec     
              Filed By: LASKIN, ALAN M.                               


         Motion to Withdraw as Plaintiff's attorney of record is unopposed   
     and is granted, on condition counsel file in Department 53 before the   
     time of the hearing either a return receipt for the certified mail or a 
     declaration that service complied with CRC 202.5.                       
                                                                             
         If the motion is granted, counsel shall prepare an amended formal   
     order if service was pursuant to 1011(b), stating that the address of   
     record is both the last known address and the court clerk pursuant to   
     CCP 1011(b).                                                            
                                                                             

     ***

     ITEM  5  02AS02403 DAVE OSBURN VS. LINVILLE BROS. TIRE & ALIGNMENT             
              Nature of Proceeding: Summary Judgment                   
              Filed By: STARINIERI, TERESA M.                               


     Continued to October 15, 2003 for oral argument.                        
                                                                             
     Defendant Linville Brothers Tire & Alignment's Motion for Summary       
     Judgment, or in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication of Issues is   
     DENIED.                                                                 
                                                                             
     Defendant's Evidentiary Objection to Lloyd Osburn's Declaration, at     
     1:28-2:2, 2:4-7, 2:8-9, 2:10-15, 2:21-22, 3:4-7; to Dave Osburn Dec.,   
     1:26-2:6, 2:10-11, 2:25-27, 3:3-6, 3:8-19 are OVERRULED; objections to  
     Lloyd Osburn's Dec. at 2:2-4, Dave Osburn Dec., 3:7, and objection to   
     Uniform Building Code are SUSTAINED.                                    
                                                                             
     Plaintiff's complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and       
     premises liability (willful failure to warn) against defendant for      
     personal injuries incurred in a trip and fall on defendant's premises.  
                                                                             
     Plaintiff raises disputed issues of material fact as to negligence,     
     premises liability and punitive damages. However, plaintiff fails to    
     comply with C.R.C., Rule 342(f), which requires that "An opposing party 
     who contends that a fact is disputed must describe the evidence, by     
     citation to exhibit, title, page, and line numbers that reflects the    
     fact is controverted."  However, the evidence submitted is not          
     voluminous, and the plaintiff has submitted citations to evidence in    
     support of his additional material facts,  the plaintiff's failure to   
     comply is not fatal.                                                    
                                                                             
     Defendant moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, for summary
     adjudication of the cause of action for premises liability.             
                                                                             
     Moving party meets its initial burden of proof on summary adjudication  
     of each cause of action.  In opposition, plaintiff does not dispute the 
     motion for summary adjudication of the cause of action for premises     
     liability based upon Civil Code 846 , as that statute applies to failure
     to warn regarding property used for recreational purposes.  (Oppo.      
     2:15-16.)                                                               
                                                                             
     Generally, the owner of property who knows, or reasonably should know,  
     of a condition upon his premises which, he should foresee, exposes his  
     business visitors to an unreasonable risk, and who has no basis for     
     believing that they will discover the condition is under a duty to      
     exercise ordinary care either to make the condition reasonably safe for 
     their use or to give a warning adequate to enable them to avoid the     
     harm.  Johnson v. Tosco Corp. (1991) 1 Cal. App. 4th 123, 138. It is    
     apparent from the photographs provided by plaintiff in opposition, that 
     the condition of the back porch posed an unreasonable risk to anyone    
     unaware that there was no railing preventing a three foot fall onto     
     rocks in the dark.                                                      
                                                                             
     Defendant has established that it had an independent contractor         
     relationship with Mary Ann Linville, the owner's  sister, to clean the  
     office and washroom once a week.  However, the owner was also aware that
     Mary Ann subcontracted out the work when she was unable to perform it   
     herself.  Implied consent was therefore given to unknown third parties  
     to be on the premises for the purpose of janitorial services.  Defendant
     asserts that he policy was to prohibit any other persons from being on  
     the premises, after business hours.  Plaintiff asserts that Mary Ann    
     gave him permission to go onto the defendant's premises on the night he 
     was injured, to pick up his brother, the substitute janitor.  Once      
     defendant was aware that others were performing the janitorial services 
     instead of Mary Ann, the defendant's duty to warn of the dangerous      
     condition extended to the substitute janitor, and plaintiff, who        
     sustained injuries falling off the porch onto rocks in the dark while   
     waiting for him to complete his work.                                   
                                                                             
                                                                             
     As the evidence submitted is not voluminous, the Court finds that a     
     conflict in the testimony exists sufficient to create disputed issues of
     material fact as to defendant's fact nos. 5, 11, 12, 14, 21-24, and     
     plaintiff's additional fact nos. 3-5.  Based on the disputed issues of  
     material fact that remain for resolution by the finder of fact at trial,
     the motions for summary adjudication are DENIED, except as to premises  
     liability under Civil Code section 846, which does not appear to have   
     been pled in the complaint.  Summary judgment is also DENIED.           
                                                                             
     The prevailing party plaintiff is directed to prepare an order for the  
     Court's signature pursuant to C.C.P. section 437c(g).                   
                                                                             
     If oral argument is requested by counsel, this matter will be heard on  
     Wednesday, October 15, 2003 at 2:00 p.m.                                
                                                                             
                                                                             
     2403202                                                                 
                                                                             



     Department 53
     October 15, 2003
     Page  4
     ________________


     ***

     ITEM  6  02AS04369 LOAN NGO VS. ROBERT REMIGIO                                 
              Nature of Proceeding: MOTION PROCEED AGIANST PLAINTIFF'S BOND                     
              Filed By: MCCALLUM, DONALD G.                               


     Continued to 10/23/2003

         Defendant's Motion to Proceed against Plaintiff's TRO bond is       
     continued on the court's own motion to October 23, 2003.                
                                                                             
         The declaration of Remegio is unsigned and does not contain any     
     supporting evidence that he actually incurred the attorneys fees set    
     forth in Mr. Donald's declaration (such as an invoice for the fees).    
     The declaration submitted in reply is untimely under CCP 1005(b) and is 
     insufficient to establish lost profits and living allowance draws from  
     July - September 2002.  Moreover, since Mr. Donald is deceased, the     
     Court will require notice of this motion to his personal representative 
     or other representative of the estate.                                  
                                                                             
         The matter is continued so that defendant may serve and file in     
     Department 53, a signed declaration, with supporting documents, on or   
     before October 17.                                                      
                                                                             
         Defendant is ordered forthwith to serve a copy of this minute order 
     and the moving and opposition papers on a representative of the estate  
     of James Donald, and to file a proof of service before the continued    
     hearing date.                                                           
                                                                             

     ***

     ITEM  7  02AS04369 LOAN NGO VS. ROBERT REMIGIO                                 
              Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO WITHDRAW BOND            
              Filed By: NELSON, BRANDON                               


     Continued to 10/23/2003

         Motion to withdraw bond is continued on the Court's own motion to   
     October 23, 2003 to be heard with the defendant's motion to proceed     
     against the bond.                                                       



     Department 53
     October 15, 2003
     Page  5
     ________________


     ***

     ITEM  8  02AS05665 CITY OF GALT VS. FADEL IBRAHIM, ET AL                       
              Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT                                 
              Filed By: SCHROEDER, DANIEL J.                               


         Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Default entered January 3, 2003 is  
     granted.  The default is void, since defendant had previously filed for 
     bankruptcy and an automatic stay was in effect.                         
                                                                             
         The minute order is effective immediately.                          

     ***

     ITEM  9  02AS05783 JOAQUIN L GOMEZ-GANSALVES VS. FRANCISCO JAVIER HERNANDEZ ETA
              Nature of Proceeding: Summary Judgment                   
              Filed By: SHAFFER, BRUCE L.                               


     Continued to October 15, 2003 for oral argument.                        
                                                                             
          The motion for summary judgment of defendant Sunstate equipment is 
     granted.                                                                
                                                                             
          Plaintiff does not dispute any of defendant's facts and has only   
     opposed that part of the motion directed at the cause of action         
     fornegligent entrustment. Plaintiff has not filed a separate statement  
     and his contentions regarding insurance or how the forklift was operated
     are without evidentiary support. This procedural defect is reason to    
     grant the motion.  However, there are also subtantive reasons to grant  
     it.                                                                     
                                                                             
          Sunstate rented a forklift to defendant Hernandez.  Hernandez      
     backed into plaintiff injuring him and damaging his vehicle.            
                                                                             
          Defendant argues that it cannot be liable for negligent entrustment
     because there was no indication that Hernandez was not fit to operate   
     the forklift. One may be liable for negligent entrustment if one "places
     or entrusts his motor vehicle in the hands of one whom he know, or from 
     the circumstances is charged with knowing, is incompetent or unfit to   
     drive ...provided the plaintiff can establish that the injury ...was    
     proximately caused by the driver's disqualification, incompetency,      
     inexperience or recklessness."  Syah v Johnson (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d    
     534, 540.                                                               
                                                                             
          In Osborn v Hertz Corporation (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 703 the court  
     granted Hertz's motion for summary judgment because there was no actual 
     or constructive notice of the driver's unfitness at the the time of the 
     rental. The driver presented a valid license and was sober at the time. 
     He later became intoxicated and caused the accident.   The court        
     rejected plaintiff's argument that Hertz should have inquired as to     
     whether the driver had a history of drunk driving or ever had his       
     license suspended. (Ibid. pages 709-710.)                               
                                                                             
          Here Hernandez was experienced, he had a valid license and there is
     no evidnece he was in any way impaired at the time he rented the        
     forklift.                                                               
                                                                             
          Plainitff's opposition is based on the Financial Responsibility    
     Law, specifically Vehicle Code Section 16020, which requires every      
     driver and every owner of a motor vehicle to be able to establish       
     fianancial responsibiliy.  Hernandez's insurance was not in effect at   
     the time of the accident.  Because he was not in compliance with Section
     16020, plaintiff argues he was unfit to operate the forklift.  This leap
     in logic is without any supporting statutory or case law and is not     
     persuasive. Whether or not one has insurance has nothing whatsoever to  
     do with one's ability to drive or operate a motor vehicle or forklift.  
                                                                             
          Furthermoe, Sunstate was under no duty to inquire into whether     
     Hernandez had insurance.  The requirements for renting a motor vehicle  
     to another are set forth in Vehicle Code Section 14608.  The renter must
     be licensed and the the renting agency must inspect the license and     
     compare the signature.                                                  
                                                                             
          Defendant shall submit a formal order pursuant to CCP 437c(g) and  
     CRC Rule 391.                                                           



     Department 53
     October 15, 2003
     Page  6
     ________________


     ***

     ITEM 10  02AS06999 CHASE MANHATTAN BANK VS. ROSALINA R. AGLUBAT                
              Nature of Proceeding: CLAIM OF EXEMPTION                                          
              Filed By: FORCE, J. ROBERT                               


         Continued again, on the Court's own motion, until October 22.       
     Judgment creditor to file in Department 53 a copy of the claim of       
     exemption on or before October 17.                                      
                                                                             
          Judgment creditor was directed to file a copy of the claim of      
     exemption by October 9, but it is not in the court file.                
                                                                             
         The judgment creditor is ordered to notify the judgment debtor of   
     the continuance and of the court's tentative ruling procedure (Local    
     Rule 3.04) and shall file a declaration in Department 53 on or before   
     October 20 confirming that said notice was given.                       
                                                                             

     ***

     ITEM 11  02AS07739 RIDA HAMDAN VS. JEREMY BUCKMAN,ETAL                         
              Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel                   
              Filed By: TOWERS, RANDALL S.                               


         Defendants Malcolm and Kathleen Morgan's Motion to Compel Further   
     Responses to Form Interrogatories 8.4, 8.7, 14.1, and 17.1 is granted.  
     Compliance to be without objections on or before October 27, 2003.      
     Sanctions are denied.  The Court declines to impose sanctions under CRC 
     341 for the unopposed motion.  Rule 341 contradicts the specific statute
     that authorizes sanctions only if a motion is unsuccessfully made or    
     opposed.  See Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v Firmaterr, Inc. 
     (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355, 371.                                    
                                                                             
         The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order or      
     further notice is required, the tentative ruling providing sufficient   
     notice.                                                                 

     ***



     Department 53
     October 15, 2003
     Page  7
     ________________

     ITEM 12  02AS07739 RIDA HAMDAN VS. JEREMY BUCKMAN, ETAL                        
              Nature of Proceeding: MOT DEEM ADMISSIONS ADMITTED       
              Filed By: TOWERS, RANDALL S.                               


         Defendants Kathleen and Malcom Morgan's Motion for Order Deeming    
     Requests for Admissions (Set 1) Admitted is unopposed and is granted.   
     The requests for admission are deemed admitted.  Mandatory sanctions are
     to be paid by plaintiff to defendant in the amount of $261.30 pursuant  
     to CCP 2033(k).                                                         
                                                                             
         The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order or      
     further notice is required, the tentative ruling providing sufficient   
     notice.                                                                 

     ***

     ITEM 13  03AS01027 DUSTIN BISHOP VS. TAMMY L. KOSCO                            
              Nature of Proceeding: DEFAULT HEARING                                             
              Filed By: LEWIS, RAYMOND E.                               


     Continued to 11/17/2003

                                                                             
                                                                             

     ***

     ITEM 14  03AS01189 CHANELLE KOSSMAN, ET AL VS. DAVID A. MCCONNELL              
              Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel                   
              Filed By: WATERS, KIM                               


         Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and  
     Requests for Production is granted as to Chanelle Kossman and David     
     Joslin but is denied without prejudice as to the minor plaintiff, Tyler 
     Joslin.  It does not appear that any guardian ad litem has been         
     appointed, since there is no such order in the court file. CCP 373.     
     Moreover, a gaurdian ad litem must be represented by counsel.  Torres v 
     Friedman (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 880, 887.  Prior counsel's withdrawal as 
     counsel for the minor was legally ineffective to the extent he purported
     to substitute the boy's parents in place of himself as the minor's      
     attorney.  Thus, the Court will not order the minor to respond to the   
     discovery until such time as there is an order appointing a guardian ad 
     litem in the file and until the guardian ad litem has an attorney.      
                                                                             
         Compliance to be without objections on or before October 27, 2003.  
                                                                             
         Sanctions are denied as the motion was not opposed.                 
                                                                             
         The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order is      
     required, however counsel for defendants shall send a copy of this      
     minute order to the plaintiffs and to their former attorney.            



     Department 53
     October 15, 2003
     Page  8
     ________________


     ***

     ITEM 15  03AS01629 ANTELOPE ASSOCIATES VS. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, ET AL
              Nature of Proceeding: Motion To File Amended Complai     
              Filed By: SANDBERG, MARK S.                               


         Plaintiff's Motion to File 2nd Amended Complaint is unopposed and is
     granted.                                                                
                                                                             
         Plaintiff shall file and serve the 2nd amended complaint no later   
     than October 24, 2003.                                                  
                                                                             
         The minute order is effective immediately.                          

     ***

     ITEM 16  03AS03617 DAWN PERRY VS. THEODORE BLAKE                               
              Nature of Proceeding: Demurrer                           
              Filed By: KOENIGSBERG, MARC B.                               


     Continued to October 15, 2003 for oral argument.                        
                                                                             
           The demurrer is moot.  Plaintiff has filed a response indicating  
     she will file an amended complaint.  Plaintiff shall file and serve the 
     amended complaint forthwith.                                            
                                                                             
          This minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order is    
     required, the tentative ruling being sufficient notice.                 
                                                                             
                                                                             

     ***

     ITEM 17  03CS01279 IN RE: DENNIS JAMES CURTNER                                 
              Nature of Proceeding: Petition For Change Of Name        
              Filed By: CURTNER, DENNIS JAMES                               


         Petition for Name is granted.                                       
                                                                             



     Department 53
     October 15, 2003
     Page  9
     ________________


     ***

     ITEM 18  03CS01283 IN RE:  GARY CHRISTOPHER SCARSELLETTA                       
              Nature of Proceeding: Petition For Change Of Name        
              Filed By: SCARSELLETTA, GARY                               


         Petition for Name Change is granted.                                
                                                                             

     ***

     ITEM 19  01AM02645 LINDA YOUNG VS. SIMS RALTORS, ET AL                         
              Nature of Proceeding: Default Hearing                    
              Filed By: FIELDS, W. RUSSELL                               


     This matter will be heard on October 15, 2003 at 2:00 PM.               
                                                                             
     Appearance Required.                                                    

     ***

     ITEM 20  02AM08951 TIN THANH NGUYEN VS. CHERIE L. KUNOLD                       
              Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel                   
              Filed By: FOLEY, MARILYN A.                               


     Continued to October 15, 2003 for oral argument.                        
                                                                             
          Defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to respond to discovery     
     requests and for an order that certain matters be deemed admitted is    
     unopposed and granted.  Compliance without objections shall be by       
     October 24, 2003.  Mandatory sanctions on the request for admissions are
     ordered in the amount of $126.30 (1 hour, $90.0 per hour, plus filing   
     fee).                                                                   
                                                                             
          This minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order is    
     required, the tentative ruling being sufficient notice.                 

     ***



     Department 53
     October 15, 2003
     Page 10
     ________________

     ITEM 21  03AM00699 STEVEN J. WILLIS, ET AL VS. DINH VAN TRAN                   
              Nature of Proceeding: Default Hearing                    
              Filed By: DRABANT, ROBERT J.                               


                                                                             
     Appearance Required.                                                    

     ***

     ITEM 22  03AM01699 ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY VS. SMART & FINAL FOOD DISTRIBUTORS
              Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Reclassify Limited C     
              Filed By: KLEIN, MARK S.                               


         Motion to Reclassify Limited Jurisdiction case is unopposed and will
     be granted on condition plaintiff submit a proposed amended complaint in
     Department 53 before the time set for hearing that alleges the          
     appropriate jurisdiction.  If the motion is granted, Plaintiff shall    
     file and serve the amended complaint on or before October 24, 2003 and  
     pay any applicable transfer fees.                                       
                                                                             
         The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order or      
     further notice is required, the tentative ruling providing sufficient   
     notice.                                                                 

     ***

     ITEM 23  03AM05707 BULLS PRIVATE SECURITY VS. LA CANTERA APARTMENT HOMES, ET AL
              Nature of Proceeding: Default Hearing                    
              Filed By: HIBBERT, PAIGE M.                               


         Dropped from calendar.                                              
                                                                             
         There is no declaration of mailing for the request for court        
     judgment and no defendant against whom default judgment is sought listed
     under Item 1(c).  The Court notes that the declaration of mailing in    
     Request for Entry of Default was not addressed to any individual on     
     behalf of the entity defendant.  Moreover, the Court is concerned that  
     the person served on behalf of the entity, the "office manager" is not  
     one of the persons to be served under CCP 416.10 and 416.40.            
                                                                             



     Department 53
     October 15, 2003
     Page 11
     ________________


     ***