| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Review – 1st Year
Finally, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs have pled around the statute of limitations defense. “In order to rely on the discovery rule for delayed accrual of a cause of action, ‘[a] plaintiff whose complaint shows on its face that his claim would be barred without the benefit of the discovery rule must specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.’ [Citation.] In assessing the sufficiency of the allegations of delayed discovery, the court places the burden on the plaintiff to ‘show diligence’; ‘conclusory allegations will not withstand demurrer.’ [Citation.]” (Fox, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 808.)
The Complaint contains a section titled “Tolling of Statutes of Limitations.” (See id. at 5:21, et seq.) Paragraph 37 contains exclusively legal argument. Paragraph 39 asserts a revocation of acceptance of the subject vehicle. Paragraph 38 alleges only that “Plaintiffs discovered Defendants’ wrongful conduct alleged herein shortly before the filing of the complaint, as the Vehicle continued to exhibit symptoms of defects following FCA’s unsuccessful attempts to repair them.” The Court finds these allegations wholly insufficient to invoke the delayed discovery rule pursuant to the holding in Fox.
3. Leave to Amend
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.) Here, the burden is on Plaintiffs to show in what manner they can amend the complaint, and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. (Ibid.; Medina v. Safe Guard Products (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 105, 112 n.8; see also Heritage Pac. Fin’l, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 994 [court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to amend where, despite ample opportunity, plaintiff failed to demonstrate it could cure defect].)
As noted, Plaintiffs failed to file anything in opposition to the instant motion and failed to request leave to amend the Complaint to state a good Concealment Claim. The motion is, therefore, GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
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?”
PROBATE CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Conservatorship of Arturo Manuel Cruz 25PR000053
REVIEW – 1ST YEAR
TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to June 03, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B to allow the Conservators to file: (1) Notice of Conservatee’s Rights (Judicial Council form GC-341) mailed to relatives of the proposed Conservatee within the second degree; and (2) Care Plan (Judicial Council form GC-355/356). The Clerk is directed to send notice to the parties.
Conservators are encouraged to contact the Court's Self-Help Center, located on the lower level of the Historic Courthouse at 825 Brown Street, for assistance.
Estate of Mark Wayne Miller 25PR000059
STATUS HEARING RE: FINAL DISTRIBUTION
TENTATIVE RULING: A status report is on file. Based on the Court’s review of the status report, the Court determines that continuation of administration is in the best interests of the estate and/or of interested persons. Thus, the Court orders that administration of the estate continue. (Prob. Code, § 12201, subd. (c)(2).) The matter is CONTINUED to April 06, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B. The Status Hearing may be vacated if, prior thereto, the personal representative files a petition for an order for final distribution. The personal representative shall file a status report 10 days prior to the next hearing. The Clerk is directed to provide notice to the parties.
In The Matter of George J Manyik 26PR000065 and Antoinette J Manyik Family Trust
PETITION TO MODIFY TRUST RE: SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES
APPEARANCE REQUIRED. Petitioner does not, through the instant Petition, seek to resign, and does not seek an order naming Tammy L. Duda as Successor Trustee. Rather, Petitioner seeks to modify the Trust itself to provide for Tammy L. Duda as Successor Trustee, and further to permit Petitioner to resign upon 30 days’ notice in the future.
The Court is concerned, however, that the prayed for approach would, upon any such resignation, effect a violation of Probate Code section 15602, subdivision (a)(3). That statute provides that a trustee is required to give a bond when “an individual who is not named as a trustee in the trust instrument is appointed as a trustee by the court.” Section 15602, subdivision (b), states: “The court may not . . . excuse the requirement of a bond for the individual described in [(a)(3)], except under compelling circumstances. For the purposes of this section, a request by all adult beneficiaries of a trust that bond be waived for an individual described in [(a)(3)] is deemed to constitute a compelling circumstance.”
The Court would like counsel to appear to discuss the foregoing.
10