1. MCV-232458, Collectronics v. Barr:
This matter is on calendar for the Receiver’s motion pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1184 for an order approving his Final Report and Accounting, with fees waived, discharging the Receiver and terminating the receivership. The motion is GRANTED.
The moving party is directed to submit an order consistent with this ruling.
2. MCV-243598, Collectronics, Inc. v. Alhuzaibi:
On October 15, 2018, Plaintiff Gary E. Looney dba Collectronics of California (“Judgment Creditor”) obtained a default judgment against defendants Noman M. Alhuzaibi, individually dba Stop & Shop Market, dba Stop & Shop (“Judgment Debtors”) in the amount of $695. This matter is on calendar for Judgment Creditor’s motion to compel Judgment Debtors to respond to his post-judgment requests for production of documents and post-judgment special interrogatories and for monetary sanctions. The Motion is GRANTED, except that as a pro per, Judgment Creditor may only recover the $90 in costs incurred as sanctions. See, e.g. Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1179; Kravitz v. Sup.Ct. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1021.
The court orders Judgment Debtors, within ten (10) days of notice of entry of the order granting this Motion: 1) to serve full and complete verified responses, without objections to the special interrogatories and requests for production; and 2) to pay monetary sanctions to Judgment Creditor in the total amount of $90.
Judgment Creditor is directed to submit an order consistent with this ruling.
3. MCV-244739, Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Perezarellano:
This matter is on calendar for plaintiff Calvalry, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to deem matters admitted pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 2033.280. The declaration accompanying the Motion establishes that Plaintiff served its first set of requests for admission on defendant Jesus Perezarellano (“Defendant”) on May 8, 2019, and that no response was received. Pack Decl. ¶¶ 4,5, Ex. A.
The Motion is accompanied by proof of service showing that service of the moving papers was timely made on Defendant. The Motion is unopposed.
The Motion is GRANTED. The truth of the matters set forth in Plaintiff’s Request For Admissions Set Number One (1) are deemed admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b).
Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit an order consistent with this ruling.
4. SCV-255545, Bertoli v. Irish Beach:
Attorney Daniela Pavone’s motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Irish Beach Clusterhomes Association is GRANTED. Trial is still five months away leaving the Association time to find alternate counsel.
Attorney Pavone is directed to submit an order consistent with this ruling.
5. SCV-260813, Gutierrez v. Petaluma Acquisition, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company:
This is on calendar for the Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The Motion is GRANTED.
The court will sign the order provided, with the additions listed below.
The Final Approval Hearing will be held on January 8, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 17. Plaintiff is directed to file a motion for final approval and for attorney fees by December 23, 2019.
6. SCV-262185, Durand v. Durand:
7. SCV-262953, Warrick v. Nank:
Plaintiff Rose C. Warrick (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants Kevin Nank and Janese Nank (sued as Janis Nank, together with Kevin Nank “Defendants”). The FAC purports to be for personal injuries, property damage, and credit damage arising out of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle.
Defendants demurred pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 430.10(e) on the basis that the FAC fails to state a cause of action because it fails to plead the requisite facts and pursuant to CCP § 430.10(f) on the grounds that the Complaint is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible because it does not disclose the conduct each party engaged in.
The Court finds that absent factual allegations the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The Complaint is also uncertain because it does not apprise Defendants of the alleged negligent conduct. Based on the foregoing, the Demurrers under CCP § 430.10(e) and (f) are SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
Defendants also filed a motion to strike the punitive damages pursuant to CCP § 436 on the basis that the Complaint fails to plead acts that would constitute “malice,” “fraud,” or “oppression” under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. In light of the ruling on the demurrer, the motion to strike is moot.
Defendants’ counsel is directed to submit an order consistent with this ruling.
8. SCV-264358, Sampson v. County of Sonoma:
County of Sonoma (also sued as Permit and Resource Management Department, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office, and Office of the County Counsel) demurrer to Plaintiff Michael T. Sampson’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The factual allegations alleged in the FAC only relate to plaintiff Tony Sampson. There are no factual allegations supporting the inclusion of Michael T. Sampson as a plaintiff in this action. Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
Defendant’s counsel is directed to submit an order consistent with this ruling.