Tentative Rulings

1. MCV-223724, Asset Acceptance v. Duisenberg
Plaintiff’s motion to vacate judgment is granted contingent upon Plaintiff filing a proof of service of the motion.

2. MCV-226016, Creditors Trade Association, Inc. v. LLE, Inc.
Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Michael Brewer is appointed as receiver to seize property of the judgment debtors so as to be able to collect its judgment herein.

3. SCV-247315, Mosier v. Kings River Resorts
With respect to the motion for determination of good faith settlement filed by Plaintiff Richard Abel and Defendant Leland Hill, said motion is granted. The court finds that Defendant’s contribution is fair and reasonable and satisfies the CCP § 877 requirements for a settlement agreement. There will be no order as to the confidentiality of non-settling parties.

4. SCV-249417, Baletto v. O’Brien
Cross-Defendants County of Sonoma and Dan Cahill move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of each cause of action alleged against them in Cross-Complainant Robert O’Brien’s first amended cross-complaint. Cross-Complainant Robert O’Brien opposes the motion.

Cross-Defendants County of Sonoma and Dan Cahill’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Cross-Defendants are to draft an order for the court’s signature.

5. SCV-249842, Bainum v. Bank of America
The rulings on the demurrer by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. to Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint are as follows:

The demurrer to the first through sixth causes of action is sustained without leave to amend.

The demurrer to the seventh cause of action is overruled.

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

The rulings on the demurrer by Balboa Insurance Company are as follows:

The general demurrer to the fourth cause of action is sustained with leave to amend to state a cause of action for unfair business practices.

The general demurrer to Plaintiff’s eleventh cause of action is overruled.

The special demurrer to Plaintiff’s twelfth cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

Defendant Balboa Insurance Company’s motion to strike is granted as to paragraphs 48, 50, 100, 141, 143, 158, and 160. The motion as to the remaining requests is denied.

Any amended complaint shall be filed within 20 days.

6. SCV-250818, Fong v. California Reconveyance Company
Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and California Reconveyance Company to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, set one, and special interrogatories, set two, are granted in part, and denied in part. The court finds that CCP § 2030.230 applies on the issues in this case.

Special Interrogatories to JPMorgan Chase Bank:

13 Further response is required. For the purpose of transferring the rights to the deed, Defendant is to identify the document outside the FFC filings of corporations to indicate such a transfer.

As to the other interrogatories, no further response is required.

Special Interrogatories to California Reconveyance Company:

5 Defendant is to identify the date the D&D letter was received which would allow for further discovery, and clarify the time frame of the matter.

The motion is denied as to the responses to other special interrogatories to California Reconveyance Company.

Form Interrogatories to JPMorgan Chase Bank:

12.7 No further response is required at this time, with the understanding that further response will occur as the parties have agreed when the term “incident” is defined.

15.1 No further response is required at this time, as the response identifies document(s) that will allow Plaintiff to reference answer “c” from answer “a.”

The motion is denied as to the responses to other form interrogatories to JPMorgan Chase Bank.

Form Interrogatories to California Reconveyance Company:

12.7 No further response is required at this time, with the understanding that further response will occur as the parties have agreed when the term “incident” is defined.

The motion is denied as to the responses to other form interrogatories to California Reconveyance Company.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

7. SCV-252079, Crawford v. Otamura
DROPPED; substitution of attorney filed 6/17/13.

8. SCV-252364, Duncan v. Stucker-Ennis
Defendants Judith Ann Nadar and Charles M. Nadar have demurred to the second and third causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.

The general demurrer as to the second cause of action as to Judith Ann Nadar and Charles M. Nadar is sustained as neither cause of action states any specific conduct on behalf of Judith Ann Nadar or Charles M. Nadar.

As to the third cause of action against Charles M. Nadar, the demurrer is sustained as the cause of action fails to state any specific conduct by him.

As to the third cause of action against Judith Ann Nadar, all that is specifically alleged is that she removed medium-sized decorative rocks from the southeast corner of the Duncans’ property and that Judith Ann Nadar was in the front passenger seat of a car when another person in the car shot a projectile at a horse ridden by Stephanie Duncan, which caused Duncan to be knocked off her horse and injured. Since that language is insufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the demurrer to the third cause of action is sustained.

As this is the first demurrer by Judith Ann Nadar and Charles M. Nadar, the demurrers to the second and third causes of action are sustained with leave to amend.

Any amended complaint shall be filed within 20 days.

9. SCV-252729, Lopez v. Weiss
CONTINUED to 8/21/13, 3:00 p.m., at the request of counsel for moving party.

10. SCV-253165, Doe v. Rose
Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., the Permanente Medical Group, Inc., and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals move to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants in this action and to stay this action pending arbitration. Defendants Edward Rose and Karen Rose also move to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants in this action and to stay this action pending arbitration. Plaintiff opposes both motions.

With respect to the Kaiser Defendants, the causes of action alleged against them arose out their duties “arising out of or related to” the Health Plan. With respect to the Roses, the causes of action all arise out of the doctor-patient relationship that was established due to Plaintiff’s enrollment in the Health Plan. While the alleged assault at the Roses’ home was on their own time and did not occur at the Kaiser campus, the parties at that time maintained a doctor-patient relationship established by the Health Plan. Considering the broad scope of the arbitration agreement, the allegations against the Roses are within the scope of that agreement.

Both motions to compel arbitration are granted. Defendant Kaiser Foundation is to draft an order for the court’s signature consistent with this ruling.