HEFFLIN VS TIMOTHY LEWIS DBA TIMS GUN SHOP

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEEM CVPS2505965 BUREAU, INC., VS MATTERS ADMITTED BY CREDITORS CORONEL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling. The motion does not comply with Local Rule 3316C. Parties wishing to argue the motion are ordered to appear. Appearance may be telephonic.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO STRIKE 1ST AMENDED HEFFLIN VS TIMOTHY COMPLAINT OF JAMES R. HEFFLIN BY CVPS2507306 LEWIS DBA TIMS GUN TIMOTHY LEWIS DBA TIMS GUN SHOP SHOP, KENT MILLER, DBA, GOLDEN STATE ARMORY Tentative Ruling: Defendants Timothy Lewis d/b/a Tim’s Gun Shop and Kent Miller d/b/a Golden State Armory’s motion to strike the request for punitive damages from plaintiff James R. Hefflin’s first amended complaint is DENIED. As set forth in the court’s ruling on defendants’ demurrer, plaintiff has pleaded his fraud cause of action with specificity. If proven, the facts underlying that cause of action could support a punitive damages award. (CC 3294(a).)

3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED HEFFLIN VS TIMOTHY COMPLAINT OF JAMES R. HEFFLIN BY CVPS2507306 LEWIS DBA TIMS GUN TIMOTHY LEWIS DBA TIMS GUN SHOP SHOP, KENT MILLER, DBA, GOLDEN STATE ARMORY Tentative Ruling: Defendants Timothy Lewis d/b/a Tim’s Gun Shop and Kent Miller d/b/a Golden State Armory’s demurrer to plaintiff James R. Hefflin’s first amended complaint is OVERRULED. According to the complaint defendant Miller is the successor-in-interest to defendant Lewis. All elements of plaintiff’s breach-of-contract cause of action are properly pleaded. The elements of his fraud cause of action are pleaded with specificity. And the complaint for declaratory relief alleges the existence of actual justiciable controversies between the parties.

Defendants to file an answer within 10 days. (CRC 3.1320(j)(1).)

4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEEM CAPITAL ONE N.A. VS CVPS2600267 MATTERS ADMITTED BY CAPITAL ONE BELL N.A. Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Capital One, N.A.’s unopposed motion for an order deeming matters admitted is GRANTED. Requests 1 through 8, inclusive, in plaintiff’s requests for admissions are deemed admitted for all purposes in this litigation.