Click here for a printable version of this page
Superior Court of the State of California
County of Orange
TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR DEPARTMENT C-22
Judge Sheila Fell
Counsel and Parties Please Note:
Law and Motion in Dep’t C-22 is heard on Wednesday
mornings at 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Rulings will be posted on the Internet each Tuesday by 4:30 p.m. [or earlier] whenever possible. To submit on the tentative ruling, please contact the clerk at (714)834-4355, after contacting opposing party/counsel. Prevailing party shall give notice of the ruling and prepare the Order/Judgment for the Court’s signature if required.
NOTE: After posting of tentative rulings, the Court will not take the motion off calendar and will grant a continuance of the motion only upon stipulation of all affected parties.
If no appearances are made on the calendared motion date then oral argument will be deemed to have been waived and the tentative ruling will become the Court’s final ruling.
CALENDAR DATE:
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
|
Case Name |
Tentative |
|
|
1 |
Huie v Southland Sod |
Motion for Clarification Court’s Order granting new trial was abundantly clear; Trial was granted on all issues based on inadequate damages; No distinction was made between economic and non-economic damages. |
|
2 |
Bristol Medical v Sentinel Health |
Atty Fees Thoreen: Allow $70,129.03; Green: Allow $45,955.00; Weiss: Fees not substantiated – disallow; Costs: Allow $ 7,206.00; Award no fees on the Cross Complaint. |
|
3 |
Young v Country Villa |
Cont’d to 8/6/08 |
|
4 |
Hagan v Carl Karcher |
O/C |
|
5 |
Dang v Lopez |
Cont’d to 8/27/08 |
|
6 |
Samsung Auto v Kim |
O/C |
|
7 |
Allen v Mauriello |
Demurrer to Answer Defendant has filed his 1st Amended Answer prior to this Court’s determination of the merits of Plaintiff’s Demurrer/Motion to Strike to Defendant’s original Answer; Moot; Mtn to Strike Answer See above; Moot; Case Mgmt Conference |
|
8 |
Spielberger v Central’s One Stop |
To C17 ? |
|
9 |
CRC Consulting v Harbor Construction |
Demurrer to 6th Cause of Action of Pltf’s Complaint Sixth cause of action lacks specificity re elements of fraud; Corporate allegations lack names, statements, dates; Sustain w/15 days leave to amend; Strike Portions of Complaint Attorney fees: No basis for attorney fee award [conceded by Pltf]; Grant; Punitive damages: Moot based on above. |
|
10 |
Ribnick v Sunrise Senior |
Mtn for Preference Appropriate based on Plaintiff’s age and ill health; Grant. |