&l2A 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 THOMAS M. CECIL, Judge R. ROUSE, Clerk V. CARROLL, Bailiff April 11, 2005, 09:00 ITEM 1 02AS04302 BRYAN BEERS VS. ANTELOPE IRON, INC. č Nature of Proceeding: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Filed By: CICCOZZI, MICHAEL J. Defendant's motion is granted; Mr. Beers is ordered to serve a verified (under oath) response and answers to defendant's Supplemental Request for Production of Documents and Supplemental Interrogatory, sets one, no later than Friday, April 29, 2005. The request for a monetary sanction is granted pursuant to C.C.P. Sections 2030(K) and 2023(b); a monetary sanction of $201.30 is awarded to defendant from plaintiff. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391. Defendant to serve plaintiff with notice of the court's ruling no later than Monday, April 11, 2005. c *** Department 54 April 11, 2005 Page 2 ______________ ITEM 2 02AS05824 JANA TEEL,ETAL VS. CHAPEL OF THE TWIN CITIES,ETAL Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT Filed By: SOUTHWORTH, NANCY A. Plaintiffs wish to amend their complaint to add defendants Skyway Memorial Park, David Hayes and Christopher Kuhn as doe defendants, with corresponding causes of action against them. These proposed defendants, who are already involved as cross-defendants, argue plaintiffs waited too long to add them, supposedly after obtaining information in November, 2003, and claim prejudice if the motion is granted because discovery closed after arbitration. The motion to amend to add Skyway, Hayes and Kuhn as doe defendants is denied. Plaintiffs knew since November, 2003, that they wished to amend their complaint to add Skyway, Hayes and Kuhn but inexplicably delayed until October, 2004 to make their motion. Furthermore, discovery closed after arbitration, further prejudicing the proposed defendants. Plaintiffs also move to amend to add Koutros as a doe defendant. Although the body of the memorandum of points and authorities makes no mention of Kotrous, the caption of the memorandum of points and authorities and the Proposed First Amended Complaint state plaintiffs wish to add Kotrous as a doe defendant also. The motion to add Koutros is denied as plaintiffs provide no explanation regarding why Koutros should be added as a doe defendant nor are there any charging allegations against him in the proposed first amended complaint. Finally, there are no proper Doe allegations in the complaint. Although not stated either in the memorandum of points and authorities or in counsel's declaration, plaintiffs' proposed first amended complaint also includes new allegations of duty against defendants CTC and Ulmer. The motion is denied for failure to comply with C.R.C. rule 327. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required; C.C.P.  1019.5. c Department 54 April 11, 2005 Page 3 ______________ *** ITEM 3 02AS06066 MARY SPOTT VS. UNITED RENTALS, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Demurrer Filed By: WORKMAN, ROBIN G. Continued to 04/26/2005 *** ITEM 4 03AS02380 MIGUEL PAYEN, ET AL VS. SUN HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel Filed By: KOSTER, CHRISTIAN Dropped. *** ITEM 5 03AS03913 STACIE N. PETERSON VS. CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Strike Filed By: BARRERA, JENNIFER D. Defendant's motion is granted. This lawsuit shall proceed from this point forward on the claims and causes of action stated in Plaintiff's original complaint, subject to the modifications, findings and orders of this Court's October 29, 2004 Order on Summary Adjudication and February 17, 2004 Order Sustaining the Demurrer to the Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Cause of Action, as stipulated to by plaintiff. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required; C.C.P.  1019.5. c Department 54 April 11, 2005 Page 4 ______________ *** ITEM 6 03AS05584 SACRAMENTO CONTAINER CORP. VS. INLAND PAPERBOARD, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Demurrer Filed By: MARSHALL, QUIN E. The general demurrers of Naylor and Todino to the sixth cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets; seventh cause of action for common law misappropriation; and the eighth cause of action for breach of confidence are overruled. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts showing the plaintiff invested substantial time, skill or money in developing a trade secret; the defendants acquired, disclosed or used the trade secret through improper means and without the authorization or consent of the plaintiff; and plaintiff was damaged by defendants' actions. See paragraphs 62-67. Contrary to defendants' argument, plaintiff does not have to allege that Inland rendered services to McCormick in exactly the same way that plaintiff performed the services. It is sufficient that plaintiff alleges that defendants' actions in obtaining and using SCC's trade secret information permitted Inland to learn how to duplicate SCC's manufacturing, warehousing and delivery methods, techniques and processes to satisfy McCormick's "just in time" delivery demands for the Salinas plant. See paragraph 66. The general demurrer of Naylor to the ninth cause of action for fraud is sustained without leave to amend. Although Mr. Naylor could be held liable for instructing his agent to make a fraudulent statement, the allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action for fraudulent concealment against Mr. Naylor. The statements "[w]e have an agreement. And we are both bound by that agreement" are not false statements. Plaintiffs argue they had an agreement with defendant in the first and second causes of action. They cannot allege a fact is both true and false for pleading purposes; alternative theories are permissible, not alternative versions of facts. Furthermore, no facts are pled showing that Mr. Naylor personally had a duty to plaintiff to not conceal the fact Inland did not intend to perform the contract nor can plaintiff plead fraud involving future action by Inland (that it would not be bound by the agreement.) The general demurrers to the eleventh cause of action, unfair competition, are overruled. Defendants argue the eleventh cause of action depends on the sixth, seventh and ninth causes of action being viable; since they are not, the demurrers to the eleventh cause of action must be sustained. Conversely, since the Court is overruling the demurrers to the sixth, seventh and ninth causes of action, the demurrers to the eleventh cause of action must also be overruled. Defendants to file and serve their answer(s) to the sixth, seventh, eighth and eleventh causes of action no later than Thursday, April 21, 2005. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required; C.C.P.  1019.5. c Department 54 April 11, 2005 Page 5 ______________ *** ITEM 7 03AS06964 FAIRWAY PARTNERS LLC VS. SUNDEEP S. DHARNI, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: HRG ON APPL TO DEEM ARB WAIVED AND TO AMEND COMPLAINT Filed By: JONES, TIMOTHY M. Fairway Partners LLC Petitioned the Court to Compel Arbitration, which petition was granted. Petitioner now seeks an order of the Court that Respondent has waived arbitration because he has not cooperated in selecting arbitrators. The agreement of the parties specifies that any controversy shall be submitted to arbitration. It also states a process for appointing arbitrators. If respondent does not agree to follow the agreed upon method, Petitioners have a remedy pursuant to C.C.P.  1281.6. The remedy is not to dismiss the arbitration and allow this matter back into the civil arena. The application is denied. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required; C.C.P.  1019.5. c *** ITEM 8 04AS00374 ROSE OGG VS. PUBLIC STORAGE Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel Filed By: ALLAYEE, AZADEH Defendant's motion is granted, in part; opposition was not received by the Court. Plaintiff is ordered to serve a further, verified, answer, without objections, to defendant's Form Interrogatories ##2.3; 2.4; 2.7; 7.1(a), which ends in "and etc."; 8.4; 12.1, objections waived; 12.2, objections waived; and 12.6, objections waived. Plaintiff is ordered to serve a further, verified, response, without objections, to defendant's Request for Production of Documents, set one, Requests ##2; 3, privileges waived; 4, privileges waived; and 11, privileges waived. The further answers and response are to be served no later than Monday, April 25, 2005. The request for a monetary sanction is denied as the motion is unopposed. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391. Defendant to serve plaintiff with notice of the Court's ruling no later than Monday, April 11, 2005. C.C.P.  1019.5. c Department 54 April 11, 2005 Page 6 ______________ *** ITEM 9 04AS01876 ORCO CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY VS. MARK R. THOMPSON, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel Filed By: WOODS, TYLER J. Continued to 05/05/2005 *** ITEM 10 04AS02120 RIVER KNOLLS L P, ET AL. VS. LAWRENCE EDWARD DEANE, ET AL. Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY NOTICE IN LIEU OF SUBPOENA Filed By: KATHLEEN EBERDINI Dropped. *** ITEM 11 04AS02190 CYHTHIA DENNY, ET AL. VS. WAYNE LATHAM, ET AL. Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel Filed By: ELLIS, MARK E. The proof of service states the Notice of Motion and Motion will be placed in a sealed envelope which will be hand-delivered on this same date by First Legal. There is no declaration from First Legal that the document was personally served on the date specified. The proof of service also states the papers will be served on March 18th. 16 Court days from March 18th is April 12th; the service, even with a proper declaration, is untimely. For both of the reasons noted above, the motion is dropped. Defective notice deprives the court of jurisdiction to consider the motion. Lee v Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 C.A.4th 503, 509, 511. *** Department 54 April 11, 2005 Page 7 ______________ ITEM 12 04AS02280 PAMELA NOLAN VS. DOUBLETREE HOTEL SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel Filed By: CHRISTENSEN, ANDREA M. Defendant Doubletree moves for an order compelling Plaintiff and Ms. Randall-Mason to comply with defendant's deposition subpoena. The subpoena seeks records from Ms. Randall-Mason which, as was iterated to defendant, she does possess, control or maintain, and which is reiterated in response to the motion. Ms. Randall-Mason has complied with the deposition subpoena issued to her by producing all documents in her possession and control; she did not furnish any raw notes as she, as is her regular custom, discarded them after submission of her report to the California Victim's Compensation and Government Claims Board. The motion is denied, as is defendant's request for a monetary sanction. Plaintiff's request for a monetary sanction does not include a declaration stating the hours incurred in opposing the motion, the rate charged, and the total amount sought. The request is therefore denied. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required. C.C.P.  1019.5. c *** ITEM 13 04AS03398 CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, ET AL VS. TERRANCE R. MITCHELL, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Demurrer Filed By: Case transferred to Department 53 Department 54 April 11, 2005 Page 8 ______________ *** ITEM 14 04AS03946 CHENG HER, ET AL. VS. MICHAEL REDING Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel Filed By: JOHNSTON, G. MICHAEL Defendant Reding's motion is granted; opposition was not received by the Court. Plaintiffs Cheng Her and Thomas Her are ordered to serve verified answers and responses, without objections, to defendant Reding's Form Interrogatories and Demand for Production of Documents, sets one, no later than Thursday, April 21, 2005. The request for a monetary sanction is denied as the motion is unopposed. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required; C.C.P.  1019.5. c *** ITEM 15 04AS04696 SAC A1 DOOR & BULDG VS. THE CREST AT FAIR AOKS APRTMENT,ETAL Nature of Proceeding: Demurrer Filed By: BROWN, A. SCOTT Pursuant to the Plaintiff's Request for Dismissal, the demurrer by Capital Valley Bank is dropped. Department 54 April 11, 2005 Page 9 ______________ *** ITEM 16 05AS00996 KAREN L. DA VIEGA VS. NASSER AZIMI, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE Filed By: DUNN, REGGIE Upon review of the evidence presented, the request for a preliminary injunction is denied. Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required; C.C.P.  1019.5. c *** ITEM 17 05CS00230 IN RE: KEITH T. LIENG Nature of Proceeding: Petition For Change Of Name Filed By: TANG, WINNIE HONG-VAN The Petition for Change of Name is granted on condition Petitioner files a proof of publication in department 54 by the day of the hearing. *** ITEM 18 05CS00232 IN RE: LORING AMES CENOTTO Nature of Proceeding: Petition For Change Of Name Filed By: CENOTTO, LORING AMES The Petition for Change of Name is granted. Department 54 April 11, 2005 Page 10 ______________ *** ITEM 19 04AM03364 RECOVERY PARTNERS II VS. GILBERT E. DODSON, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL OF ACTION Filed By: LANA, EDGAR J. The motion to set aside the dismissal of defendant Dodson, entered at plaintiff's request on February 2, 2005, is granted; the dismissal is vacated and set aside. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391. Plaintiff to serve Dodson with notice of the Court's ruling no later than Monday, April 11, 2005; C.C.P.  1019.5. c ***