APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE TRIAL DATE
Defendant Blue Sky Utility 2021 IV LLC’s Fifteenth Cause of Action for Breach of Contract asserted against BPI through the Complaint in Blue Sky Utility LLC, et al. v. Bright Power Inc., assigned Case No. 24CV001768 pending before this Court (The 1768 Action). Not only does BPI fail to deny the assertion, it appears to concede the point. (See Opposition at 2:13 [“This case also involves the Montebello project”].)
Based on a review of the FAC, the Complaint in the 1768 Action, and the parties’ respective briefs on the instant Motion, the Court finds that BPI’s cause of action asserted against Moving Defendants through the FAC arises out of the same transaction as the Fifteenth Cause of Action asserted against BPI in the 1768 Action. Because the 1768 Action was filed earlier, the instant action against the Moving Defendants is barred by Section 426.30, subd. (a).
Based on the foregoing the Demurrer is SUSTAINED.
Generally, it is an abuse of discretion for a court to deny leave to amend where there is any reasonable possibility that a Plaintiff can state a good cause of action. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) However, the pleading party bears the burden of showing such reasonable possibility. (Ibid.)
In light of BPI’s concessions (in the Opposition) regarding the nature of its claims in the instant action, it does not appear to the Court that there is any reasonable possibility that BPI can amend the FAC to “plead around” the bar of Section 426.30, subdivision (a). BPI not only fails to suggest how it might do so, it does not request leave to amend through its Opposition. The Demurrer is, therefore, SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Alexander Perry v. County of Napa et al 25CV000598
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE TRIAL DATE
APPEARANCE REQUIRED: The Application is GRANTED. The Trial Management Conference, currently set for August 6, 2026, and the Trial, currently set for August 10, 2026, are hereby VACATED. The parties are directed to appear at the hearing to select new dates.
The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendant County of Napa applies, pursuant to California Rules of Court rules 3.1202, subdivision (c) and 3.1332, subdivisions (c) and (d), for an order continuing the trial date and resetting all trial-related dates and deadlines to run from the continued trial date.
The Court has a statutory “responsibility to eliminate delay in the progress and ultimate resolution of litigation, to assume and maintain control over the pace of litigation, to actively manage the processing of litigation from commencement to disposition, and to compel attorneys and litigants to prepare and resolve all litigation without delay, from the filing of the first document invoking court jurisdiction to final disposition of the action.” (Govt. Code, § 68607.) In fulfilling these responsibilities, the Court “shall...[a]dopt and utilize a firm, consistent policy against continuances, to the maximum extent possible and reasonable, in all stages of the litigation.” (Id. at subd. (g).) Therefore, a party moving for a continuance must show good cause requiring the continuance. (Ibid.)
“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).) Continuances are disfavored and the Court may only grant a continuance “on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (See id. at subd. (c). Emphasis added.)
Defendant presents evidence that an essential witness is unavailable for trial as currently scheduled, and that, despite the parties’ diligence, significant discovery remains to be completed. In light of the fact that the trial has not previously been continued, the Court finds good cause requiring the continuance.
Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED. The parties shall appear prepared to select new trial and related dates.
Rore Manufacturing, Inc. v. Karen Coffy 26CV000810
DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE SLAPP SUIT AND FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
TENTATIVE RULING: The Clerk is directed to STRIKE the First Amended Complaint filed July 6, 2026, from the Court’s files. Hearing on the instant Motion is CONTINUED to August 6, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A. Plaintiff Rore Manufacturing, Inc. is granted leave to serve and file, no later than July 24, 2026, a Separate Statement as described below. Defendant Karen Scheuner is granted leave to serve and file, no later than July 30, 2026, a Responsive Separate Statement. To be clear, neither party is granted leave, by this order, to file any additional briefing or evidence in relation to the instant motion.
The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of
17