Printer Friendly Version
TENTATIVE RULINGS
Superior Court of the State of California
County of Orange
DEPT C3
July 25, 2008
Law & Motion heard at 9:00 a.m.
Judge Kazuharu Makino
OBTAINING THE RULINGS:
Tentative rulings will usually be posted on the internet by 3:00 pm the Thursday prior to the scheduled Friday hearing. If your internet service is not available you may contact the clerk in Dept. C3 (714 834-3888) for the ruling.
PREVAILING PARTY SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF THE FINAL RULING TO EACH PARTY. PREVAILING PARTY SHALL PREPARE AN ORDER/JUDGMENT FOR THE COURT’S SIGNATURE IF THE MOTION IS DISPOSITIVE OF A PARTY OR THE CASE.
APPEARANCES:
If counsel wish to submit on the tentative ruling please call the court clerk to notify the Court that all parties are submitting on the tentative and no appearance will be necessary. The tentative will then become the final ruling. If no one appears at the hearing the tentative will be the final ruling.
ORAL ARGUMENT:
All requests for oral argument will be granted. Oral argument will be heard at the time scheduled for the motion. Argument will normally be limited to facts, law and argument not already submitted in the written Points & Authorities.
Motions will not be continued after the tentative has been posted. No court call on law & motion.
TENTATIVE RULING ON LAW & MOTION MATTERS
|
# |
Case Name |
Tentative |
|
1. |
07CC09453 BUCKETT VS BRECKENRIDGE |
Motion to File Amended Cross Complaint GRANTED. No opposition. |
|
2. |
07CC03801 GHANEELIAN VS KAVOUSSI |
Continued to 8-15-08 at 9 a.m. in this department. |
|
3. |
07CC11933 HUNTER FINANCIAL VS ORION EQUITY |
Off calendar |
|
4. |
2008-104822 JOHN B EWLES INC VS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH |
Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend (although I doubt the defect can be cured. The P lacks standing. Public Resources Code sections 6501.3 and 6503 apply only to state owned lands. Public Contracts Code section 20162 does not apply to a charter city if the action of the city pertains only to municipal matters. Leasing of a city park is purely a municipal matter. P also does not qualify as a taxpayer if the basis for that claim is only that it pays for a business license. What other taxes it pays to the city is unclear. Essentially, this is a case about a waste management company, P, seeking to keep another waste management company from operating in the city. 15 days to amend. |
|
5. |
NEWPORT BEACH HOTEL VS NEWPORT BOARDWALK |
OFF CALENDAR |
|
6. |
07CC05583 SEHREMELIS VS KONSTANTOPOULOS |
Motion for Summary Judgment by cross-D GRANTED. No opposition filed. Sufficient evidence presented to establish complete defense to each C/A in cross complaint. Cross-complainant fails to show any triable issue exists. |
|
7. |
2008-104651 HANSHAW VS JOHNSON |
Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. On the face of the complaint, claim is barred by statute of limitations. CCP 340.6. 15 days to amend. |
|
8. |
07CC06034 MARQUIS VS KILROY |
D ABM Motion for Summary Judgment GRANTED. Declarations by Alvarado and Ochoa present sufficient evidence to meet D’s initial burden and shift the burden to P to present evidence of a disputed issue of fact. P fails to do so. P’s evidence of a history of removing items not admissible in the form presented. Deposition of Biaez fails to establish at what point the following day the box was discovered to be missing. She does not say she noticed it missing at 8 am. She did not even say it was missing that morning. The testimony only establishes that the box was noticed missing at “some point in time.” Without greater specificity about the time when the box was found to be missing, there is no basis to infer that the box had to be taken between 5pm and 8am the next day. |
|
9. |
2008-105809 STRATEGIC VS NATIONWIDE |
Continued to 7-31-08 at 9:00 am. Moving party to give notice. |
|
|
|
|