There are no tentative rulings for Tuesday, August 21, 2018

There are no tentative rulings for Monday, August 20, 2018

There are no tentative rulings for Friday, August 17, 2018

There are no tentative rulings for Thursday, August 16, 2018

Tentative Rulings for Wednesday, August 15, 2018 for Department 8, Judge Chrissakis presiding  

 

Arellano v Santiago                        Case No. 18C0021                                                                                  

No opposition has been filed. Proper notice of motion was given. Based on the pleadings on file, the motion to compel responses to form and special interrogatories and the request for production of documents is granted. All objections have been waived. Verified responses are due 10 days from service of notice of ruling. Sanctions are ordered in the sum of $525, plus costs of $90, for a total sanction award of $615.

                            

 

There are no other tentative rulings.  Consistent with California Rule of Court, rule 3.1308 (a)(2), no notice of intent to appear is required. If the non-prevailing party does not appear for hearing, the tentative ruling will become the order of the court. The prevailing party shall prepare an order for the court’s signature.

Tentative Rulings for Tuesday, August 14, 2018 for Department 8, Judge Chrissakis presiding  

 

Toney v Nieto                             Case No. 16 C 0336                                                                        

No opposition has been filed. Proper notice of motion was given. Plaintiff counsel’s  motion to withdraw as counsel is granted. The next hearing is the settlement conference on 11/14/18.

 

                

There are no other tentative rulings.  Consistent with California Rule of Court, rule 3.1308 (a)(2), no notice of intent to appear is required. If the non-prevailing party does not appear for hearing, the tentative ruling will become the order of the court. The prevailing party shall prepare an order for the court’s signature.

Tentative Rulings for Monday, August 13, 2018 for Department 8, Judge Chrissakis presiding  

 

Brightwell v De-Jiminez             Case No. 18 CV0013

The defendant’s demurrer is overruled. Even accepting that the demurrer was directed to the First Amended Complaint, a demurrer cannot be brought against a prayer for punitive damages, or an exemplary damage attachment to a complaint. ( Ramsden v Western Union (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 873, 882-883.)

                                                                         

Defendant’s motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages and the exemplary damages attachment is granted, without prejudice to renew if, after discovery,  plaintiff is able to plead facts to support a finding of malice as defined in Civil Code §3294. (College Hospital Inc v Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725 [malice" is defined as conduct "intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff," or "despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others." (Id., §3294, subd. (c )(1).) As noted earlier, the italicized words were added by the 1987 Reform Act. We assume they are not surplusage. ]

 

The allegation of using a cellular telephone while driving (even if there was evidence to support such an allegation) does not support a punitive damage claim because mere intent to do an action which constitutes negligence is not enough to establish willful misconduct. (Calvillo –Silva v Home Grocery (1998) 19 Cal.4th 714, 729, overruled in part on another issue in Agular v Atlantic Richfield Co (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.) To support punitive damages, conduct that has the character of outrage frequently associated with crime must be alleged. (Tomaselli v Transamerica Ins Co (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1286.)

 

The complaint does not allege sufficient facts to support a punitive damage prayer.

 

                                                                            

There are no other tentative rulings.  Consistent with California Rule of Court, rule 3.1308 (a)(2), no notice of intent to appear is required. If the non-prevailing party does not appear for hearing, the tentative ruling will become the order of the court. The prevailing party shall prepare an order for the court’s signature.

Tentative Rulings for Friday, August 10, 2018 for Department 8, Judge Chrissakis presiding  

 

Stokes v Housing Authority of Kings County     Case No. 17 C0297

 

A review of the criminal database for Kings County indicates that no criminal charges were ever filed against petitioner. Accordingly, there was no legal basis for respondent to suspend and then terminate petitioner’s housing benefits and hence no need to remand this case for further hearing. The petition for writ of mandate is granted. Respondent’s  termination of petitioner’s Section 8 Program benefits is set aside. Respondent is ordered to restore petitioner’s housing benefits.

 

Petitioner’s points and authorities assert that the record contains evidence of the housing benefits petitioner would have received had they not been improperly suspended and then terminated by respondent. Unless objection is made to this evidence, the court intends to award the sum of $8998 to petitioner as a retroactive reinstatement of benefits. (Reyes v Board of Supervisors (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1263, fn 11[State general assistance funds withheld in accordance with an invalid regulation constitute a debt of the state effective as of the date of application.]) Petitioner conceded that a rewriting of the Administrative Plan by respondent is not sought at this time. (Request was set forth in paragraph 55 (c ) of the prayer of the petition for writ of mandate.)

 

The court denies petitioner’s request for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The court finds that the purpose of the writ was to restore the housing benefits to petitioner. No evidence was presented that other Section 8 participants benefited from this petition, or were similarly situated. The court does not find evidence that a public benefit was conferred by this litigation, so there is no legal basis for such an award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. (Roybal v Government Bd of Salina City Elementary School Dist (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1149 [The writ of mandate, however, benefited only petitioners; other employees were not named in the order, nor was the language issue relevant to the other employees' complaints].)

 

Costs are awarded to petitioner as the prevailing party. Petitioner shall prepare the final order and judgment. Costs shall be determined as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 and California Rule of Court, rule 3.1700.

                                                                                                                            

There are no other tentative rulings.  Consistent with California Rule of Court, rule 3.1308 (a)(2), no notice of intent to appear is required. If the non-prevailing party does not appear for hearing, the tentative ruling will become the order of the court. The prevailing party shall prepare an order for the court’s signature.

 

There are no tentative rulings for Thursday, August 9, 2018

There are no tentative rulings for Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Tentative Rulings for Tuesday, August 7, 2018 for Department 8, Judge Chrissakis presiding  

 

Medina-Yepez v River Ranch Farms LLC                    Case No. 17C0109                                  

 

The court finds the class action settlement fair and the amounts to be paid to counsel and the settlement administrator to be reasonable. The motion for final approval of the class action settlement is granted. A hearing date for final compliance is set for  Monday, 4/29/19 at 8:15 a.m. in this Department. The hearing will go off calendar if a declaration is submitted before the hearing confirming distribution of funds as set forth in the petition.

                                                                                        

There are no other tentative rulings.  Consistent with California Rule of Court, rule 3.1308 (a)(2), no notice of intent to appear is required. If the non-prevailing party does not appear for hearing, the tentative ruling will become the order of the court. The prevailing party shall prepare an order for the court’s signature.