Nov 25, 2015

Wednesday, November 25, 2015, 3:00 p.m.
Courtroom 16 - Hon. Elliot Lee Daum
3035 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 200, Santa Rosa

CourtCall is available for all Law & Motion appearances, EXCEPT parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption which are mandatory appearances. Please contact CourtCall directly at (888) 882-6878.

The following tentative rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, YOU MUST notify Judge Daum’s Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6725, and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, November 24, 2015. Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.



1. SCV-254979; Ashley LTC, Inc. v. Butler

James M. Marshall’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Thomas Butler is granted.



2. SCV-256779; Dandridge v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC

Defendants’ demurrers to causes of action one through ten are sustained, with leave to amend.


Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and each cause of action contained therein fails to set forth any improper conduct or wrongdoing on Defendants’ part.  Plaintiffs’ claims are largely conclusory and fail to establish: (1) the existence of any actual contract or a clear and unambiguous promise between the parties; (2) any misrepresentation, intentional or negligent, made by Defendants; (3) any intent to defraud or intent to induce reliance on Defendants’ part; (4) any justifiable or detrimental reliance by Plaintiffs; or (5) any legal duty of care owed and/or breached.  Moreover, Plaintiffs cannot establish any resulting damages or prejudice since no sale has taken place and no new foreclosure proceeding has been initiated.


Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint within 20 days.



3. SCV-256914; Roche v. Lydon

Appearance required.



4. SCV-256970;  Hepperly v. Sousa

There are no allegations with respect to any prior drunk driving allegations and in fact although Plaintiff asserts that Defendant consumed alcohol on the date in question in violation of a prior probation order, there are no allegations that Plaintiff was actually intoxicated at the time of the subject accident.  It is important to note that Taylor was decided before the 1987 amendments to Civil Code section 3294 added a “despicable conduct” requirement which was intended to make punitive damages more difficult to plead and recover.


At the present time, Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to depose the Defendant and obtain additional facts bearing on her consumption of alcohol, i.e., when such alcohol was consumed and, how much alcohol Defendant actually did consume on the night of the accident prior to the accident.


The allegations in the First Amended Complaint are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.  This does not mean that Plaintiff could not amend the complaint to remedy the deficiencies.


The court sustains Defendant’s motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages, with leave to amend.


The motion to strike allegations of fleeing the scene is denied.


Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 20 days.




© 2015 Superior Court of Sonoma County