DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2026-01542936·orange·Civil·Real Estate
Hearing about 2 months agoContinued.

Casate vs. Allview Real Estate

Demurrer to Complaint; Motion to Strike Complaint

Hearing date
Jun 25, 2026
Department
C44
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Ruling

the Court finds that the declaratory judgment Cross-Complainant seeks is an appropriate subject for a declaratory relief action. Cross-Defendant argues that declaratory relief is not necessary or proper because the Cross-Complaint only seeks to redress past wrongs, but the Court finds there is an ongoing ripe controversy as to the Parties respective rights and duties under the relevant insurance policies as it pertains to Cross-Defendant’s duty to defend Cross-Complainant with respect to Ace’s subrogation claim.

Accordingly, the motion is denied as to both noticed issues.

Cross-Complainant shall provide notice of this ruling.

3 Casate vs. Allview Real Estate

2026-01542936 Demurrer to Complaint Motion to Strike Complaint

Continued. See minute order dated 6/23/26 (ROA 37).

4 Gallagher vs. Oak Tree Business Systems, Inc.

2021-01232788 Motion for Bifurcation

Off calendar. See minute order dated 6/11/26 (ROA 167). 5 Garay vs. L’Abri Management, Inc

2026-01553144 Demurrer to Complaint

Defendants L’Abri Management, Inc.; Beccy Hasselbarth, and individual and as Trustee of the Beccy Hasselbarth Trust dated February 1, 2018; and Fay Gallegos’ Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED in part and SUSTAINED in part.

Fifth Cause of Action – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

To state a cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”), the plaintiff must allege: (1) outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) the defendant’s intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct. (Yau v. Santa Margarita Ford, Inc. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 144, 161.) For conduct to be outrageous for purposes of IIED, the conduct must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized society. (Id.) In addition, “[the defendant's] conduct [must be] directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share