Defendant's Demurrer
emotional distress"].) Here, the First Amended Complaint pleads a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress by Mr. Gavert only. Mr. Gavert may claim damages due to emotional distress under a cause of action for negligence. Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS without leave to amend the demurrer to the eighth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Ninth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress Plaintiffs agree to dismiss the tenth cause of action against Defendant The Estate of Michael Brodie. (Opposition, 16.) Plaintiffs should submit a notice of dismissal.
Tenth cause of action for tort per se Defendant argues that the tenth cause of action for tort per se is duplicative of the causes of action for professional negligence and negligence. "[T]he doctrine of negligence per se is not a separate cause of action, but creates an evidentiary presumption that affects the standard of care in a cause of action for negligence." (Turner v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 516, 534 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS without leave to amend the demurrer to the tenth cause of action for negligence per se.
Statutory Remedies under Health & Safety Code Sec. 1430(b) The fifth cause of action for violation of resident rights is not asserted against The Estate of Michael Brodie. According, the Court DENIES the motion to strike statutory damages and attorney's fees pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1430(b).
CV-26-002065 - VELASCO, IRINIEO vs PIERCE, JOSEPH STANLEY - Defendant's Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint - GRANTED, and unopposed. On May 6, 2026, Defendants submitted the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint on the basis that the summons and complaint were served at a residence that is not the home or usual place of abode of Defendants and also on the basis that the individual defendant passed away before service was purportedly effectuated. The motion is unopposed.
Here, the proof of service indicates substituted service on a residential address that is not the dwelling house or usual place of abode of Defendant Joseph Stanley Pierce dba Mi Valley Dairy. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 415.20.) In addition, Defendant Joseph Stanley passed away on March 10, 2026, which is before service was purportedly effectuated on March 23, 2026. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 418.10, the unopposed motion is GRANTED. The proposed order submitted by Defendants inaccurately references opposing papers (and oral argument). Moving party to submit a corrected proposed order that conforms to this ruling within five court days.
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?”
PR-24-000883 - IN THE MATTER OF KENNETH J OCKEY TRUST - Respondent Roxanne Ockey's Motion to Require Trustee/Petitioner Daryn A. Ockey to Give Bond - DENIED. Respondent Roxanne Ockey's motion to require Petitioner Daryn A. Ockey to post a bond is DENIED. The Court finds that Probate Code section 15602 does not provide authority to require a beneficiary or co-trustee to post a bond as a condition of prosecuting a petition challenging a trust amendment. The bond provision contained in the contested April 18, 2023 amendment is not a traditional trustee bond provision securing performance of fiduciary duties and, at this stage, will not be enforced as a litigation prerequisite.
The Court declines to impose a bond in the absence of a showing that such relief is necessary to protect the trust estate or beneficiaries. Respondent's objections to Petitioner's supplemental memorandum are SUSTAINED. The Court declines to consider the supplemental filing as unauthorized and untimely.
UD-26-000388 - LAL, RONALD vs POWELL, JAYMI - Defendant's Demurrer - HEARING REQUIRED.
The Court is inclined to overrule the Demurrer. The three-day notice begins on the date of service. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1170.) Here, the notice was served on April 9, 2026. The instant matter is unlike the notice in Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) 112 Cal.App.5 th 433 because here the service date listed on the notice is the same date the notice was served. Next, Plaintiff waited until after the expiration of the three-day notice period before filing the complaint. Nothing in section 1170 requires a 30 day notice period.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 23***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-22-000411 - PEREZ, AMALIA vs KAUR, BALJINDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion. Notwithstanding Counsel's attestation to his client having fled to Mexico without knowledge of his whereabouts, the Court requires that Counsel mail the moving papers to the client's last known address. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362). Accordingly, this matter is continued to June 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court for Counsel to accomplish said service.
CV-23-002153 - WILKINS, JANENE R vs YOSEMITE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses, Without Objections, to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Yosemite Community College District, Set No. Two, and Request for an Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant and Defense Counsel in the Sum Of $4,550 - GRANTED, in part. DENIED, in part.
The Court finds that Defendant's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 106, 107, 108 are not Code Compliant for failing to "specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party." Defendants response also failed to "set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item." (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2031.230)
Defendants' response to Request for Production No. 117 fails to "affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand", fails to "state whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen" and fails to "set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item." (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2031.230). Accordingly, Defendant shall provide further, verified Code compliant responses to Requests for Production Nos 106, 107, 108 and 117.
A prelitigation factual investigation conducted by outside counsel retained by city into Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint filed by former employee, who worked for city as firefighter and paramedic, was protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine in employee's suit against city under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for harassment, discrimination based on sex, and retaliation, even though counsel's role was limited to factual investigation and did not extend to providing legal advice; dominant purpose of counsel's representation was to provide professional legal services to city attorney so that he, in turn, was able to advise city on appropriate course of action.”(City of Petaluma v. Superior Court (2016) 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 248 Cal.App.4th 1023, review filed, review denied.
"If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log." (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2031.240; Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015), 242 Cal.App.4th 1116). The purpose of a "privilege log" is to provide a specific factual description of documents in aid of substantiating a