- Online Services Pay Fines, Transcripts...
- Forms & Filing Forms, Fee Schedule...
- Self-Help Self-Rep, Info, FAQs...
- Divisions Civil, Criminal, Family...
- General Info Local Rules, ADA, Maps...
Law and Motion Calendar
Wednesday, May 15, 2013, 3:00 p.m.
Courtroom 16 -- Hon. Elliot Lee Daum
3035 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 200, Santa Rosa
1. MSC-182356, Cortez v. Lopez
CONTINUED to 5/29/13, 3:00 p.m., at the request of moving party.
2. SCV-250559, Gonzalez v. City of Petaluma
DROPPED; notice of settlement filed 5/9/13.
3. SCV-251845, Wolf v. Thomas
Defendant The Alliance Redwoods Conference Grounds’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Ruth Thackery is granted.
The undisputed facts demonstrate that Ruth Thackery was not financially dependent on Nola Wolf. A parent of a married decedent must be financially dependent on decedent in order to have standing to assert a wrongful death cause of action within the plain meaning of the statutory framework, including CCP § 377.60(b). The moving papers demonstrated that Ruth Thackery lacks standing and that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Plaintiffs submit no evidence or facts demonstrating a triable issue.
Plaintiff Charles Wolf is a proper Plaintiff with standing.
Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted.
Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted.
Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendant’s Evidence in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment are overruled.
4. SCV-252028, Citizens for Safe Neighborhoods v. City of Santa Rosa
The Petitioner’s Motion for Stay is denied.
Petitioner fails to demonstrate that a stay in this case would be in the public interest. Further, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. When balancing the hardships, Respondent would suffer the greater harm if the project activities are stayed at this time. Petitioner’s argument ignores CEQA’s express statutory provision allowing project developers to proceed with development at their own risk pending litigation. (PRC § 21167.3(b).) Petitioner does not appear to have met its burden showing that the project falls into an exception to the exemption.
5. SCV-252617, Stop the Casino 101 Coalition v. City of Rohnert Park
Respondent’s Motion for Judgment is granted. Statutory and case law and the Administrative Record lodged herein on January 16, 2013, show that each of the causes of action alleged in the petition lacks merit and that the City is entitled to judgment. Petitioner has not exhausted administrative remedies. In addition, the subject action of this proceeding is exempt from CEQA review under Gov. Code § 12012.56(b)(1)(C).
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition and Complaint is granted. The County and the Tribe each have a unique contract interest to protect. Both are parties to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement designed to mitigate off-site traffic impacts associated with the casino development by widening and constructing other improvements to Wilfred Avenue. (Petition, ¶ 6; see also AR 1, 99, 202.) Its terms provide the parties’ respective performance obligations, rights and benefits. (AR 1). This suit seeks to prohibit the widening of the roadway designed as mitigation under the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. Each of the signatories is entitled to defend its respective rights; otherwise, the Tribe and County’s rights will be immediately affected and prejudiced by Petitioner’s action, if successful.
CCP § 389 required Petitioner to name and serve the Tribe and the County.
Because Petitioner failed to serve Real Parties in Interest, this suit cannot proceed and should be dismissed.
6. SCV-252750, Goodwin v. Deutsche Bank
DROPPED; dismissal filed 5/9/13.
7. SCV-253148, Friends of Lafferty Park v. Pikachu II, LLP
DROPPED; first amended complaint filed 5/2/13.
8. SCV-253192, Ahrens v. Windsor Healthcare
DROPPED; first amended complaint filed 4/12/13.
9. SCV-253262, Slate v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Defendants’ demurrer to the first cause of action of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is overruled. The allegations within the first amended complaint, the exhibits attached thereto and incorporated therein, and the claims made within the opposition, all demonstrate that the protections of section 2923.6 could well have been triggered prior to February 20, 2013. Accordingly, Plaintiff has stated a potentially valid violation of this statute.
Defendants shall file an answer to the first amended complaint within 20 days.