Reset


Private

civil tentative rulings


The court does not issue tentative rulings on Writs of Attachment, Writs of Possession, Claims of Exemption, Claims of Right to Possession, Motions to Tax Costs After Trial, Motions for New Trial, or Motions to Continue Trial.


Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 701, any party opposed to the tentative ruling must notify the court, and other parties, by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of their intention to appear for oral argument. The court's notice must be made by facsimile to 559-733-6774.


Timestamp: 02/10/2016 at 6:17pm



Tentative Rulings for Thursday, February 11, 2016 are:

Re:                     Scott v. Centex Homes, et al. and Related Cross-Actions

Case No:           VCU250840

Date:                  February 11, 2016

Time:                  8:30 A.M. 

Dept.                  2 - The Honorable David Mathias

Motion:              Demurrer by Cross-Defendant Derek D. Jones, dba Donco to Plaintiffs’ Complaint

Tentative Ruling:  To Overrule the Demurrer by Cross-Defendant Derek D. Jones, dba Donco to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.  As Cross-Defendant is not a named Defendant in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, no further order regarding a response to the Complaint is required.

Cross-Defendant’s Objections to Evidence are overruled.  The court’s intended remedy for a one day late filing of a party’s opposition would be to grant a brief continuance of the hearing.  However, this relief was not requested by the moving party and there is no indication that the moving party was prejudiced by the late filing.

For the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs’ opposition filed on February 1, 2016, the grounds stated for demurrer lack merit and are not supported by legal authority.  Vaughn v. Dame Construction Co. (2008) 223 Cal.App.3d 144, relied on by Cross-Defendant does not support Defendant’s contention.  In Vaughn the original purchaser of property from the defendant developer sued for construction defects.  There is no contention in the case that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue.  After filing suit, the plaintiff in Vaughn sold the property.  The issue was whether plaintiff maintained a right of action after the sale.  The court determined she did and that she could pursue her claim that she received less money for her property due to the stated defects.  Likewise, the Court in Vaughn did not find that the subsequent purchaser would be completely barred by the plaintiff’s action.   Any claim by the subsequent purchaser would be limited based on the reduced purchase price for the property due to the asserted defects.  There is nothing in Vaughn or in any other authority cited by Cross-Defendant that construction defect claims can only be pursued by the builder.  Here Plaintiffs assert defects existed at the time they purchased their homes from the developer, but that the defects did not manifest themselves or otherwise become known until after purchase.  The demurrer is properly overruled.  See Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Re:                     Acuna v. Morehead

Case No:           VCU262706
and

Re:                    Martinez v. Morehead

Case No.:         VCU263229

Date:                 February 11, 2016

Time:                8:30 A.M. 

Dept.                 2 - The Honorable David Mathias

Motion:             Motion by Plaintiff Ana M. Acuna to Consolidate Actions

Tentative Ruling:  To Grant the Motion by Plaintiff Ana M. Acuna to Consolidate Actions and to order Case No. 262706 consolidated with Case No. 263229.  Case 262706 is designated the lead case and all future documents are to be filed in the lead case.

Proof of service in the file indicates that notice of the motion was adequate.  No response to the motion has been filed.  Plaintiff Acuna has established that both cases involve the same automobile accident and are brought against the same defendants.  Plaintiff Acuna has shown that both actions involve common issues of law and fact.

Whether separate actions are consolidated into a single action is a matter within the trial court's discretion. Mellone v. Lewis (1965) 233 Cal App 2d 4.  Here there is no opposition to the motion.  Plaintiff Acuna has shown that consolidation would benefit the parties by avoiding duplication and delay.  Further, consolidation would preclude possible inconsistent verdicts if the matters were separately tried.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.


Re:                     Bailey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Case No:           VCU260670

Date:                  February 11, 2016

Time:                  8:30 A.M. 

Dept.                  2 - The Honorable David Mathias

Motion:               Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

To grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, in part, and to Order Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff identifying to which request the documents produced on January 22, 2016 are responsive. Any further relief requested in the motion is denied.  Further responses are due within ten (10) days of notice of this order.  To the extent Plaintiff contends responses remain inadequate, a separate motion will be required.  The requests for sanctions by each party are denied at this time.  Sanction requests may be renewed if a further motion is brought.

The parties acknowledge a number of efforts to resolve this discovery dispute.  The parties have entered into a protective order as requested by Defendant.  Defendant has produced approximately 500 additional documents in response to Plaintiff’s meet and confer requests.  Plaintiff asserts Defendant previously agreed to identify the requests to which the documents are intended to be responsive.  The court limits relief on this motion based on these facts.   As relief is limited, the court declines to award sanctions at this time.  The court may reconsider sanctions related to this motion if a further motion on these discovery requests is brought.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.


This concludes the civil tentative rulings



Top