Defendant Seascape Resort Ltd’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike; Plaintiff/Cross-Defendants Seascape Resort Owners’ Association, Stacie Power, and Ellyn Rubin’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Defendant Resort’s Motion to Compel Further Responses by Cross-Defendant Stacie Power
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 14, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
No. 23CV01708
SEASCAPE RESORT OWNERS’ ASSN. v. SEASCAPE RESORT, et al.
DEFENDANT SEASCAPE RESORT LTD’S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION BY MARCIA WALLIS, MARCIA CAPORN, AND NEELU MANRAO
DEFENDANT SEASCAPE RESORT LTD’S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION BY POWER WEST PROPERTIES, INC.
PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANTS SEASCAPE RESORT OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, STACIE POWER, AND ELLYN RUBIN’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS TO SEASCAPE RESORT LTD.’S SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
DEFENDANT RESORT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY CROSS-DEFENDANT STACIE POWER TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
DEFENDANT RESORT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY CROSS-DEFENDANT STACIE POWER TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
All parties and intervenors to appear.
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 14, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
The Court is aware of an amicable settlement between the Association, Ms. Rubin, and the Resort. Those parties should be prepared to advise if Ms. Power will participate in that settlement. If not, parties should be prepared to provide a new hearing date for the Resort’s motions to compel Ms. Power’s discovery responses and describe to what degree the demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings involving her and/or Power West Properties, Inc. remain pending.
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?”
As for Intervenors, the Court anticipates ordering succinct briefing on the issue of what remains to be determined as to their interests in the event of a global or partial settlement by other parties. Deadlines and page limits for such supplemental briefing will be discussed at the hearing.
No. 25CV01250
LOMELI v. HOME DEPOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
The motion is granted in part and denied in part, without prejudice.
Leave of court is required to amend any pleading except as provided by Code of Civil Procedure sections 472 and 474. A judge may, in furtherance of justice and on proper terms, allow the amendment of any pleading at any time, even after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473, subd. (a), 576; Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 474, 488 [leave to amend any pleading is entrusted to judge’s sound discretion].) Judges should generally be liberal in permitting amendments to pleadings. (Id.)
A judge should deny leave to amend only when the facts are undisputed and the nature of a claim is clear, but under the substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result. (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Judges must consider factors of party conduct, potential prejudice to parties, timeliness of amendment, or unwarranted delay. (See Duchrow v. Forrest (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377; Emerald Bay Community Assn. v. Golden Eagle Ins.
Corp. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1097-98.)
Plaintiff asserted he was struck by an AI powered inventory robot, causing injury while shopping at Home Depot. The complaint alleges strict products liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and breach of express warranty against Home Depot and Zippedi, Inc.
On December 1, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel filed notice that plaintiff had passed away. According to this motion, plaintiff is survived by his two daughters, Jacqueline and Rosa Lomeli.