Defendant George Hills' General and Special Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
claim of privilege in connection with a request for document production to permit a judicial evaluation of the claim of privilege. (Hernandez v. Superior Ct., (2003), 112 Cal. App. 4th 285, as modified (Oct. 23, 2003).
A privilege log typically should provide the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged document, the document's date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted.”(Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court, supra).
Defendant's privilege log does not meet these requirements and is deficient.
Plaintiff makes unsubstantiated claims of the waiver of Defendants attorney client privilege to support a request for the investigative report at issue without providing support for those claims. Therefore, the court cannot presently compel the production of the documents sought in Request for Production No. 116. (Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Ct., (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 110).
Defendant shall provide a further Code compliant privilege log. (Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015), 242 Cal.App.4th 1116).
All further responses shall be provided within ten days of the date of this order. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2031.310).
Based on the Joint Status Report submitted by the parties and the attached correspondence, the Court understands that sanctions are no longer sought by Plaintiff and therefore makes no award regarding monetary sanctions.
CV-24-000171 - HERNANDEZ, JOSE V vs SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES INC - Final Fairness - HEARING REQUIRED.
Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court finds the payment to the Class Representative, to the Class Members and the Class Administrator to be appropriate given all relevant factors of the settlement.
The Court also finds Class Counsel's attorney's fees and costs to be reasonable and comparable to the award of fees generally issued by California Courts. The Court is therefore inclined to grant final approval of the Class Action Settlement herein.
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?”
In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. Sec.384, the Court sets a compliance hearing for Friday, December 11, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 to confirm full administration of the settlement.
Class counsel shall submit a compliance report no later than five (5) court days before the date of the hearing, which shall include the total amount that was actually paid to the class members pursuant to the subject settlement.
At the time of the compliance hearing, the Court shall amend the judgment to direct that the sum of the unpaid funds, plus interest as required by the statute, be distributed as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
In addition, the Court orders that Notice of the Court's Order Granting Final Approval and Judgment shall be posted on the Settlement Administrator's website for a period of at least 90 days. (Civ. Code Sec.1781(g); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.771(b).
CV-24-008960 - RODRIGUEZ, OSCAR vs CUPCAKE BOUTIQUE LLC - Defendant's Motion to Reclassify Action from Unlimited to Limited Civil Jurisdiction - DENIED, without prejudice.
The Court notes that the motion does not demonstrate proof of service on Plaintiff. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1005) Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.
CV-25-008787 - GHAI, CHARANJIT vs CITY OF CERES CITY COUNCIL - Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate - CONTINUED to June 5, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.
This matter is CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to June 5, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 for further review and consideration.
In addition, the Court on its own motion VACATES the Case Management Conference set for May 21, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 and RE-SETS it to June 5, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.
CV-25-012483 - JACKSON, NICHOLAS TYLER vs GEORGE HILLS COMPANY INC - Defendant George Hills' General and Special Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED, in part, OVERRULED, in part, with leave to amend
The First Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for negligence arising from Defendant's administration of Plaintiff's Government Claims Act claim and alleged mishandling of confidential information.
As to the first cause of action (negligence--claims administration), the First Amended Complaint fails to allege facts establishing that Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's allegations arise from Defendant's role as a third’party administrator for the City of Modesto in processing a government tort claim. The First Amended Complaint does not allege facts showing Plaintiff was an intended beneficiary of that relationship or otherwise within a class of persons to whom Defendant owed a duty. The First Amended Complaint further fails to allege non’speculative damages caused by Defendant's conduct, as Plaintiff's claim was rejected and he pursued litigation against the public entity.
As to the second cause of action (negligence--mishandling of confidential information), the First Amended Complaint similarly fails to allege facts establishing duty, standing, or cognizable damages. The alleged injury arises from Plaintiff's receipt of documents pertaining to another claimant. The First Amended Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff's own confidential information was disclosed or facts establishing a legally protected interest or resulting injury.
Accordingly, the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute either cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.10, subd. (e).) Therefore, Defendant George Hills Company, Inc.'s general demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED as to both causes of action.
Defendant's Special Demurrer on grounds of uncertainty is overruled.
Defendants Request for Judicial Notice is granted for the limited purposes of the existence/filing/procedural posture of the identified filings but denied for the truth of allegations or to resolve disputed facts. (Evidence Code Section 452).
The Court cannot conclude at this stage that the defects cannot be cured by amendment. Leave to amend is therefore granted.
Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of the date of this order.
Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order that conforms to this ruling within five court days.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:
***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***