LAW AND MOTION PROCEDURES FOR DEPT. CX102

 

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE LAW AND MOTION PROCEDURES AND POLICIES

FOR DEPT. CX102

 

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. CX102 (657-622-5302) for the ruling. 

PREVAILING PARTY SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF THE FINAL RULING TO EACH PARTY and 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 (657-622-5302) 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.

NOTICE TO COUNSEL:

Upon filing a motion, moving party shall mail a copy of this notice to opposing counsel.  If opposing counsel appears unnecessarily because of moving party’s failure to give notice of the above procedures, sanctions may be imposed.

 

TENTATIVE RULINGS ON LAW & MOTION MATTERS

Date:  Friday, February 03, 2012

 

#

Case Name

Tentative

1

10-388534

Drotar vs. Casual Male Retail Group, Inc.

Status Conference only.

Off Calendar -  by stipulation the parties agree to continue the Motion for Approval of Class Settlement to February 24, 2012.

2

 

11-513867

Jaimes vs. Able Building Maintenance

 

1.     Def., ABLE and UBS, Demurrer to the 1st, 2nd 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Causes of Action of the First Amended Complaint   ---   This motion is continued on the Court’s motion to March 5, 2011, at 8:30 AM to coincide with the CMC which is set for that date.  The Court needs clarification of the current status of the de la Rosa and Garcia cases. 

 

3

08-113320

MCP Industries, Inc. vs. Vadnais Corporation

 

1.     Cross-Def., Bureau Veritas (BVNA), Motion to Oppose Good Faith Settlement Determination   ---   Motion is continued to May 4, 2012, to allow BVNA to conduct limited discovery on the Tech-Bilt factors.

In addition, Veritas and the City do need to explain by supplemental factual declarations the proportional liability, credits,  financial status and ins. coverage of each settling Def./X-Def.  This is necessary for the court to evaluate and apply the Tech-Bilt factors.  Supplemental declarations are to be filed on or before April 20, 2012.  No additional briefing is necessary.

 

2.     Cross-Def., BVNA, Demurrer to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th and 10th Causes of Action of the  First Amended Complaint   ---   

2nd, 3rd, and 4th (Indemnity C/As) Causes of Action:  Overruled; These C/As are pleaded in the alternative and there is no reason why they cannot be pleaded in this manner. C.L. Peck Contractors vs. Superior Court, 159 CA 3d 828, Crowley vs. Katleman 8 C 4th 666, 691.

9th and 10th (Warranty C/As) Causes of Action:  Sustained without leave to amend (at least at this time);  If discovery produces some evidence that BVNA was actively involved in the construction aspect so as to cause the warranty C/As to apply they may seek leave of the court at that time.

4

06CC07498

Topaz vs. Merit Civil Engineering Inc.

Continued to 2/17/2012 at request of moving party.

5

11-523063

Zimmerman vs. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC

 

1.     Def., Mercantile  Adjustment Bureau, LLC, Motion to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice   ---   Granted, assuming counsel has, in fact, sent the mandatory $50 to the State Bar of Cal. ;  Counsel has complied with all necessary provisions of the CRC 9.40.

6

JCCP 4644

Fosamax/

Alendronate Sodium Drug Cases

 

1.     Atty, Pawelek and Cristian,   Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice   ---   Granted, assuming the required $50 fee per application has been paid to the State Bar of California;  Counsel have met and complied with all other requirements of the CRC 9.40.

7

10-349867

Reynoso vs. Aramark Corp

1.     Plt., Reynoso, et al, Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Related Relief (Has actually become a Def. motion based on the rulings of the Court at the last hearing)   ---   Denied;  The Dec. 21, 2011, declaration of Smith is improperly verified “under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania.”   Plt. counsel has failed to file an opposition by the previously ordered date of January 23, 2012.

Is there a settlement or not?

Plt.s need to appear and confirm their consent to settlement agreement.

 

How soon can Plt. be prepared for a motion to certify the class?

 

09-124906

Itani vs. Yorba Linda Water District

 

1.     Def., Yorba Linda Water, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings   ---   Denied;   This motion lacks an new legal authority.  The pleadings in this matter do sufficiently plead the necessary element of the cause of action.  This motion really adds nothing to the prior arguments made.   Sanctions are denied.

 

2.     Def., Yorba Linda Water,  Motion to Trifurcate   ---  No tentative.

 

Inverse Condemnation (Court trial? Case law clear indicates no right to a jury trial on this issue.)

Misrepresentation (Jury trial?)

Damages (Jury trial?)

When Def. uses the term derivative action what do you mean?

 

 

3.     Def., Yorba Linda Water, Motion to Compel SDT Compliance   ---  

Procedurally:  The notice given for this motion is insufficient b/c 16 court days plus 2 additional court days are required for valid service.  This notice is 1 day short of compliance.  EEP 1005, 1010.6 and CRC 2.251   Further , there is no indication of service on T-Mobile.  CRC 3.1346.

Substantively:  The motion is well taken but will not be granted until the service issues are resolved.

 

 

4.     Def., Yorba Linda Water, Motion to Compel Any Response to Special Rogs  (Set 4)  (Short)   ---  

Procedurally:  This motion has the same service issues noted in Motion #3 above.

Substantively:  Motion will be granted once the service issue is resolved.

 

5.     Def., Yorba Linda Water, Motion to Compel  Any Responses to Requests for Production of Documents  (Set 5)  ((Short)   ---  

Procedurally:  This  motion has the same service issues noted in Motion #3 above.

Substantively:  Motion will be granted once the service issue is resolved.

 

6. Def., Yorba Linda Water, Motion to Compel Any Response to Request for Production of Documents  (Set 5) (Lew)   ---  Procedurally:  This  motion has the same service issues noted in Motion #3 above.

Substantively:  Motion will be granted once the service issue is resolved.

 

7.     Def., Yorba Linda Water, Motion to Compel Non-Party Deposition   ----  

Procedurally:  This motion has the same service issues noted in Motion #3 above.  Additionally, it was not served withing60 days after completion of the depo record which “notice of nonappearance” was prepared on November 4.  This motion was not filed until January 11, more than 60 days.   CCP 2025.480(b)  In addition the notice to Brandon Lambdin was not served until January 22, 2012 - Not enough notice.