Related Contentin Kings County
Case
Amina Abdullaeva v. Pablo Castaneda M.D., Christopher Angelo Colasanti M.D., Nyu Langone Health System, Nyu Langone Hospitals
Sep 05, 2024 |Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |523979/2024
Case
CARRIEL, LIERITZA V. v. WYCKOFF HEIGHTS REALTY, INC
Jun 05, 2023 |Maslow, Hon. Aaron D. |Tort-Other Negligence |Tort-Other Negligence |516223/2023
Case
Zurab Lagadze v. Ulfat Hussain, Khan Htesham
Sep 05, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |523929/2024
Case
HERRERA,JENESSIS v. WYCKOFF HOSP.
Nov 29, 2002 |Rosenberg, Hon. Gerard H. |Tort-Medical, Dental, or Podiatric Malpractice |Tort-Medical, Dental, or Podiatric Malpractice |47205/2001
Case
MANKO,NELLA v. AETNA HEALTH INC.
Jul 06, 2009 |Bunyan, Hon. Bert A. |Tort-Medical, Dental, or Podiatric Malpractice |Tort-Medical, Dental, or Podiatric Malpractice |14593/2009
Case
HERNANDEZ, SHERLENY v. GROSSBARD, HOLLIS et al
Mar 10, 2023 |Velasquez, Hon. Richard |Tort-Motor Vehicle |Tort-Motor Vehicle |507554/2023
Case
FARRIER, PATRICIA v. COLEMAN, RASHAWN et al
Mar 09, 2023 |Maslow, Hon. Aaron D. |Tort-Motor Vehicle |Tort-Motor Vehicle |507332/2023
Case
JAHANGIR, AHMED v. CASTRO, INDHIRA A
Mar 02, 2023 |Joseph, Hon. Ingrid |Tort-Motor Vehicle |Tort-Motor Vehicle |506631/2023
Case
REID,ANTHONY v. LONG ISLAND COLLEGE
Apr 21, 2009 |Demarest, Hon. Carolyn E. |Tort-Other Negligence |Tort-Other Negligence |30963/2008
Ruling
Mook, et al. vs. Jeantette
Sep 04, 2024 |22CV-0200414
MOOK, ET AL. VS. JEANTETTECase Number: 22CV-0200414This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of the case. An order to Show Cause issued on August 21,2024 and is scheduled for hearing on September 23, 2024. To avoid duplicative appearances, today’s hearing iscontinued to Monday, September 23, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63. No appearance is necessary ontoday’s calendar.
Ruling
HONG GAN VS SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
Sep 04, 2024 |23AHCV00462
Case Number: 23AHCV00462 Hearing Date: September 4, 2024 Dept: P ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AS MOOT AND TAKING THE HEARING ON THE MOTION OFF-CALENDAR I. INTRODUCTION This is an action arising from alleged medical malpractice. On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff Hong Gan (Plaintiff), who is self-represented, filed a Complaint against Defendant San Gabriel Valley Medical Center. On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendant San Gabriel Valley Medical Center alleging causes of action for: (1) Intentional Tort, Sexual Abuse; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) Negligence; (4) False Involuntary Detention in a Mental Hospital; and (5) Patient Rights Violation. On November 14, 2023, Defendant AHMC San Gabriel Valley Medical Center LP filed a demurrer to the entire FAC. On April 30, 2024, after hearing oral argument, the Court sustained Defendant AHMC San Gabriel Valley Medical Center LPs demurrer to the FAC without leave to amend on the grounds that this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. (04/30/24 Minute Order.) On March 27, 2024, this action was reassigned to the Honorable Jared D. Moses sitting in Department P at Pasadena Courthouse effective April 2, 2024. On June 3, 2024, Defendant San Gabriel Valley Medical Center LP (Defendant), who indicates that it was erroneously sued as San Gabriel Valley Medical Center, filed and served a Motion to Have Plaintiff Declared a Vexatious Litigant. Also, on June 3, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Action Pursuant to CCP § 581(f)(1). On July 30, 2024, after hearing oral argument, the Court granted Defendants Motion to Have Plaintiff Declared a Vexatious Litigant. (07/30/24 Minute Order.) Also, on July 30, 2024, after hearing oral argument, the Court granted Defendants Motion to Dismiss. (07/30/24 Minute Order.) On July 30, 2024, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal and dismissed this action with prejudice pursuant to CCP § 581(f)(1). On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal, which indicates that Plaintiff is appealing this Courts April 30, 2024 order. On August 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Set Aside Judgment (the Motion). Plaintiff requests that the Court set aside its April 30, 2024 and July 30, 2024 orders. On August 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal, which indicates that Plaintiff is appealing the Courts July 30, 2024 order of dismissal. On August 21, 2024, Defendant filed and served an opposition to the Motion. In the opposition, Defendants counsel indicates that the Motion was served on Defendant via email on Saturday, August 17, 2024. (Pawley Decl., ¶ 5.) On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing that the Motion was served on Defendant on August 17, 2024 by electronic service. As of August 30, 2024, no reply brief has been filed. Any reply brief was required to have been filed and served at least five court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) II. LEGAL STANDARD The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) Application for . . . relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding was taken. (Ibid.) It is well settled that appellate courts have always been and are favorably disposed toward such action upon the part of the trial courts as will permit, rather than prevent, the adjudication of legal controversies upon their merits. (Benjamin v. Dalmo Mfg. Co. (1948) 31 Cal.2d 523, 525.) III. ANALYSIS A. Judicial Notice The Court GRANTS Defendants request for judicial notice. (Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.) B. Procedural Defects in Plaintiffs Motion Defendant contends the Motion should be denied because Plaintiff served the Motion with insufficient notice. Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. The moving and supporting papers served shall be a copy of the papers filed or to be filed with the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Any period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period . . . after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days . . . . (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) Here, the Court finds that the Motion is procedurally improper as Plaintiff did not file and serve the Motion with sufficient notice to Defendant. Plaintiff did not file and serve the Motion with enough time for Defendant to sufficiently prepare a response pursuant to CCP §§ 1005(b) and 1010.6(a)(3)(B).) Further, the Court finds that the Notice of Motion is defective as Plaintiff did not set forth [t]he date [or] time of the hearing on the Motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(b)(1).) The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is self-represented; however, Plaintiff is still held to the same standard as an attorney. (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.) Plaintiff is reminded to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court. C. The Effect of the Pending Appeals Although not raised as an argument in the opposition brief, the Court will address Plaintiffs pending appeals. [T]he perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order. (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.) The purpose of the automatic stay provision of section 916, subdivision (a) is to protect the appellate courts jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided. The [automatic stay] prevents the trial court from rendering the appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other proceedings that may affect it. (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiff is appealing the Courts April 30, 2024, and July 30, 2024 orders which, collectively, sustained Defendants demurrer to the FAC without leave to amend and dismissed this action. The Motion seeks to set aside the Courts April 30, 2024 and July 30, 2024 orders. It follows that the Courts April 30, 2024 order and July 30, 2024 order are both embraced in the pending appeals. Ruling on the Motion may subject the parties to inconsistent rulings depending on the outcome of the appeals. It is possible that the Second District Court of Appeal may reverse the Courts April 30, 2024 order and July 30, 2024 order. The Court therefore is without power to proceed further as to any matter embraced therein until the appeal is determined. (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, supra, 35 Cal.4th 180, 197.) The Court ruling on a motion to set aside the Courts April 30, 2024 and July 30, 2024 orderswhile appeals of such orders are pendingwould render such orders a nullity under Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 912. Irrespective of the defects concerning service and notice of the Motion, the Court cannot rule on the Motion at this time due to the pending appeals. To do so would possibility subject the parties to inconsistent rulings depending on the outcome of the appeals. IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Motion to Set Aside Judgment is MOOT and is taken OFF-CALENDAR due to the pending appeals. Defendant to give notice of this order. Dated: September 4, 2024 JARED D. MOSES JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Ruling
Bente, Jennifer et al vs. Granite Wellness Centers
Sep 16, 2024 |S-CV-0050671
S-CV-0050671 Bente, Jennifer et al vs. Granite Wellness Centers** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouragedAppearance required.
Ruling
ROGELIO MAGANA CASTILLO VS KIMBERLY BROOKS
Sep 04, 2024 |Renee C. Reyna |21STCV15566
Case Number: 21STCV15566 Hearing Date: September 4, 2024 Dept: 29 Castillo v. Brooks 21STCV15566 Defendants Motion for Court to Issue Order to Show Cause and Set Hearing regarding Contempt Tentative The motion is granted, with some revisions to the proposed order. Background According to the Complaint, on April 26, 2019, Plaintiff Rogelio Magana Castillo (Plaintiff) met with Defendant Kimberly Brooks (Defendant) at Zen Buffet in Monrovia, California. Plaintiff alleges (among other things) that Defendant raised her glass of water towards Plaintiff, stared at him and sta[r]ted yelling obscene words at Plaintiff right before she threw the glass at Plaintiff from a distance of less than four (4) feet from Plaintiff. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff asserts (among other things) that the glass hit him on the left cheekbone area injuring Plaintiffs cheekbone, left eye socket and left ear. (Id., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff filed the complaint against Defendant and Does 1 through 50 on April 26, 2021, alleging causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery. Defendant filed her answer on November 15, 2022. On October 25, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel was relieved as counsel. Since that time, Plaintiff has been representing himself in pro per. On May 24, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for an Order to Show Cause regarding Contempt. No opposition has been filed. These motions were continued from June 25 to August 12. At the August 12 hearing, the Court noted Defendant did not satisfy one procedural requirement, a proposed OSC that clearly identifies how many counts of contempt are asserted and the basis for each charge. The matter was continued to September 4. Defendant filed a new proposed OSC on August 14, 2024. Legal Standard The following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings therein, are contempts of the authority of the court: . . . (5)¿Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1209, subd. (a)(5).) When the contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court or judge, a warrant of attachment may be issued to bring the person charged to answer, or, without a previous arrest, a warrant of commitment may, upon notice, or upon an order to show cause, be granted . . . . (Code Civ. Proc. §¿1212.) The facts essential to establish jurisdiction in the contempt proceeding are: (1) the making of the order, (2) knowledge of the order, (3) ability of the accused to render compliance, and (4) willful disobedience of the order. (Application of Ny¿(1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 728, 731.) All elements of charged contempt must be averred in affidavit of accuser and must be developed in the proofs. (Id.) The party seeking to have a person held in contempt has the burden of proving the ability to comply beyond a reasonable doubt. (Application of Liu¿(1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 135, 141-42; In re Cassil¿(1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1087.) Discussion Contempt proceedings are different from, and require far more procedure than, a standard law-and-motion matter. Because a contempt places a persons liberty at issue, these procedures must be strictly followed. The alleged contempt at issue is an indirect contempt. In general, the first step in an indirect contempt proceeding is an application for an issuance of an Order to Show Cause. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1211, subd. (a).) The application must be supported by an affidavit or declaration that sets forth the facts of the alleged contempt, and the moving party must submit a proposed order (the proposed OSC re Contempt). (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1211-1211.5; 2 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial [2023], ¶¶ 9:713-714.1.) The application may be made through the ordinary procedures for an ex parte application (including ex parte notice to opposing counsel). (2 Weil & Brown, supra, ¶ 714.2.) If the application is granted, the Court will then issue an OSC re Contempt that, among other things, describes the alleged contempt and sets the date and time for a hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1212; 2 Weil & Brown, supra, ¶ 9:715.) (The Judicial Council has published an OSC re Contempt form for use in family law cases; although that form is not used in civil law cases, it may provide some guidance to counsel in how to prepare an OSC re Contempt in a civil law matter.) The moving/citing party must then serve the OSC re Contempt and supporting affidavits/declarations on the cite/respondent in the same manner as a service of summons usually personal service. (Lund v. Super. Ct. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 698, 713; Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Super. Ct. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286.) At the date and time set for hearing, the citee will be arraigned; the arraignment generally includes (among other things) advisem*nts of the charges against the citee and the rights of the citee, including the right to counsel. Most commonly, at the arraignment, the matter is set for an evidentiary hearing, or trial, on a future date. There is no right to a jury trial in civil contempt proceedings, even though such proceedings may result in a fine or imprisonment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209.) The citor/moving party has the burden of proof and is held to a standard similar to that of a prosecutor in a criminal proceeding. The citee is presumed innocent, and the proof of the contempt must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, Defendant has filed a motion for an Order to Show Cause regarding Contempt based on Plaintiffs failure to comply with certain orders, including the Courts January 17, 2024 Minute Order. The Court on January 17, 2024 compelled Plaintiff to comply with his statement of compliance and produce all documents in his possession responsive to Defendants Request for Production of Documents nos. 11 and 12. Plaintiff has failed to do so. (Bitan Decl., ¶ 15.) In the proposed OSC, Defendant lists 5 counts for contempt as follows: 1. Plaintiff Rogelio Castillo has violated this Courts January 17, 2024 Order by failing to produce all documents in his possession responsive to Defendants Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12 and failing pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $900.00. 2. Plaintiff Rogelio Castillo has violated this Courts August 14, 2023 Order by failing to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $900.00. 3. Plaintiff Rogelio Castillo has violated this Courts August 16, 2023 Order by failing to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $900.00. 4. Plaintiff Rogelio Castillo has violated this Courts August 18, 2023 Order by failing to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $900.00. 5. Plaintiff Rogelio Castillo has violated this Courts August 21, 2023 Order by failing to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $900.00. Accordingly, the motion for an Order to Show Cause regarding Contempt is GRANTED. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions for bringing this motion. The request for sanctions will be adjudicated at the time of the contempt trial. The request is deferred to that time. The Court orders the following modifications to the OSC. First, in the initial, unnumbered paragraph, the final sentence is stricken and replaced with the following: After considering the moving papers, any opposition, any oral argument, and all other evidence presented at or prior to the hearing, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff is CHARGED with contempt as follows: Second, paragraph 7 is modified to read as follows: Plaintiff is notified that Defendant will seek an order in connection with the contempt trial requiring Plaintiff to pay Defendant the sum of $4,250 for the fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this contempt. Third, paragraph 9 is stricken. The Court has made its orders. An order compelling compliance with an order is redundant and unnecessary (and is not the proper subject of an OSC re contempt in any event). Conclusion The Court GRANTS Defendants motion for an Order to Show Cause regarding Contempt. The Court sets the OSC re Contempt for a date on or after 11/18/23 at 1:30 pm in Dept. 29 at SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. The Court DIRECTS THE JUDICIAL ASSISTANT to modify the proposed order as follows: First, in the initial, unnumbered paragraph, the final sentence is stricken and replaced with the following: After considering the moving papers, any opposition, any oral argument, and all other evidence presented at or prior to the hearing, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff is CHARGED with contempt as follows: Second, paragraph 7 is modified to read as follows: Plaintiff is notified that Defendant will seek an order in connection with the contempt trial requiring Plaintiff to pay Defendant the sum of $4,250 for the fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this contempt. Third, paragraph 9 is stricken. The Court advises Defendant that in most circ*mstances personal service of the OSC re Contempt on the citee is required. Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Ruling
JOSHUA DEWEY STOCKTON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Sep 05, 2024 |24STCV04316
Case Number: 24STCV04316 Hearing Date: September 5, 2024 Dept: 34 Joshua Dewey Stockton v. Los Angeles County (24STCV04316) Defendant Los Angeles Countys Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED. The court will hear from the parties whether leave to amend is warranted. Background On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff Joshua Dewey Stockton (Plaintiff), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendant Los Angeles County (Defendant or County). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 4, 2024. Subsequently, following stipulation by the parties, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on May 3, 2024, which is the operative pleading in this action. Plaintiffs complaint arises from criminal proceedings brought against him in Los Angeles County and allegations that he sustained damages as a result of these proceedings. On June 21, 2024, Defendant County filed a Demurrer to the Complaint. On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Demurrer, erroneously titled as Motion to Quash Opposition to Defendants Demurrer. Plaintiff filed another Opposition to Demurrer on August 26, 2024. On August 27, 2024, Defendant filed a Reply. On July 1, August 1, and August 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed the following Motions: (1) Motion to Quash Opposition to Demurrer (as an Opposition to Defendants Demurrer); (2) Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint; (3) Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint; (4) Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, filed on July 1, 2024; (5) Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, filed on August 1, 2024; (6) Motion for Sanctions; (7) Motion to Compel Discovery; (8) Motion for Mandatory Settlement Conference. On August 21, 2024, Defendant filed oppositions to Plaintiffs Motions. On the same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Quash Defendants Oppositions. On August 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed several redundant oppositions to Defendants oppositions and replies. Demurrer A. Legal Standard A demurrer is a pleading that may be used to test the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in the complaint. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 430.10.) There are two types of demurrers general demurrers and special demurrers. (See McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 77.) General demurrers can be used to attack pleadings for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); McKenney, 167 Cal.App.4th at 77.) Such demurrers can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable; evidence or extrinsic matters are not considered. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the Court admits all material facts properly pleaded and matters which may be judicially noticed, but does not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation]. (Blank, 39 Cal.3d at 318.) It gives these facts a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. (Ibid.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) The face of the complaint includes exhibits attached to the complaint. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.) "If facts appearing in the exhibits contradict those alleged, the facts in the exhibits take precedence." (Holland v. Morse Diesel Intern., Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447.) Special demurrers can be used to attack the pleadings on grounds that the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible, or in a contract case, for failure to allege whether a contract is oral or written. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the pleading is so unclear that the responding party cannot reasonably determine what issues to admit or deny or what counts and claims are directed toward the responding party. (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that [b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).) When a demurrer is sustained, the court determines whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) When a plaintiff has pleaded the general set of facts upon which his cause of action is based, the court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint, since plaintiff should not be deprived of his right to maintain his action on the ground that his pleadings were defective for lack of particulars. (Reed v. Norman (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 892, 900.) Generally, the court will allow leave to amend on at least the first try, unless there is absolutely no possibility of overcoming the issue. (See Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227 ("Denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the complaint shows on its face it is incapable of amendment. [Citation.] Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given.").) B. Meet and Confer The court finds Counsel Megan Liebers Declaration detailing her attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the instant Demurrer sufficient to satisfy the meet and confer requirement. (See Lieber Decl.) C. Request for Judicial Notice Defendants Request for Judicial Notice of the following matters is GRANTED: 1. Exhibit A - Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BA482518 Minute Order dated November 15, 2019; 2. Exhibit B - Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BA482518 Minute Order dated August 11, 2021; 3. Exhibit C - Certified Transcript of Preliminary Hearing in Case No. BA482518 on August 11, 2021; 4. Exhibit D - Claim for Damages to Person or Property submitted by Plaintiff to County on August 23, 2023. D. Analysis a. Motion Defendant demurs to the Second Amended Complaint on the following grounds: First, Plaintiffs claim for malicious prosecution is barred because the County is immune from liability where the individual government employees would be immune from liability, pursuant to Government Code sections 815.2, subdivision (b). (Mot. pp. 5-6.) Given that any individual County employee, including a prosecutor, would be immune from liability caused by instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceedings within the scope of employment, the County is also immune from liability for claims alleging malicious prosecution and abuse of process. (Ibid.; Gov. Code § 821.6.) Defendant also argues that despite this immunity, the district attorney in the underlying criminal proceedings did not take any actions without probable cause as the Court determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the charge and proceed with trial. (Mot p. 6; RJN Ex. B at p. 2, Ex. C at p. 39.) Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs claims for violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and claims for discrimination, bodily restraint in violation of California Civil Code section 43, and deprivation of constitutional rights in violation of California Civil Code section 52.3, are barred because they vary from the claims set forth in Plaintiffs Notice of Claim. (Mot. pp. 6-8; Gov. Code § 910; RJN at Ex. D.) While the claim for malicious prosecution is presented in Plaintiffs Government Claim, claims for violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as state law claims for discrimination, bodily restraint, and deprivation of constitutional rights are not part of the Government Claim. (Ibid.) Thus, all claims but the malicious prosecution claims should be dismissed with prejudice. (Ibid.) Third, Plaintiffs claims are so vague and ambiguous that Defendant cannot ascertain what is being alleged against it. (Mot p. 8.) The SAC contains very few factual allegations that identify what actions were taken by the County and how Plaintiff was harmed as a result. (Ibid.) Thus, the Court should sustain the Demurrer on the grounds of uncertainty. (Ibid.) b. Opposition Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the Demurrer, erroneously titled Motion to Quash Opposition to Defendants Demurrer. Plaintiff argues that Defendant has been thoroughly informed by the Plaintiff of the specific causes of action and as a government administration, the defendant, Los Angeles County, should be construed as superior in legal assessments when discerning legal claims made against them and thus, its lack of understanding of the complaint is objectionable as an improper impeachment. (Oppos. pp. 1-2, 8.) Moreover, Plaintiffs reference to the criminal case is sufficient to make Defendant aware of what matters are at issue and to foresee the result from making baseless accusations against the wrongfully incriminated. (Id. at p. 2.) According to the doctrine of less particularly, because Defendant has superior knowledge of the facts, less particularity in the pleadings is sufficient. (Id. at pp. 9-10.) Finally, the exhibits filed by Defendant for Request for Judicial Notice contradict Defendants claim that the SAC is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible as Defendant is well aware of the circ*mstances of the criminal case. (Id. at p. 15.) Moreover, Plaintiff argues that he has properly stated a cause of action for prosecutorial misconduct, as the SAC states that Defendant County violated state laws by wrongly initiating and wrongfully maintaining that prosecution against Plaintiff Joshua Dewey Stockton. (Oppos. p. 4; SAC p. 8.) Moreover, Defendant has plead sufficient facts for a malicious prosecution cause of action, as the SAC states that damages to be remedied by this civil action began to accrue on November 14, 2019 and continued to accrue up to January 5, 2023 from the prosecution of plaintiff Joshua Stockton by defendant Los Angeles County in case BA482518. (Oppos. p. 5; SAC p. 11.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant is not immune from liability because a public entity is liable for tortious acts committed by independent contractors in the employment of the public entity, pursuant to Government Code section 815.4. (Ibid.) Plaintiff also argues that he has pled sufficient facts to constitute causes of action for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, harassment, discrimination, excessive force, abuse of power, and assault and battery. (Oppos. pp. 6-7.) Plaintiff also argues that governmental immunity is not grounds for a demurrer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10. (Oppos. pp. 9-11.) Moreover, the prosecutor in the instant case violated Rule 5-110 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor and the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Legal Policies Manual, Disclosure of Exculpatory and Impeachment Information. (Id. at pp. 12-13.) Plaintiff also argues that the SAC does not fail due to uncertainty because it clearly states that the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office and the Los Angeles County Law Enforcement used special computer equipment and software to falsify, fabricate, and modify evidence. (Oppos. p. 13; SAC pp. 13-15.) c. Reply In its Reply, Defendant argues that immunity is a proper ground for a demurrer on the basis that Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 permits a demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Reply p. 1.) Here, any claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against County are barred as a result of the immunity provided by Government Code section 821.6. (Id. at pp. 2-3.) Other than stating that immunity is not properly raised in a demurrer, Plaintiff offers no explanation of why Defendant is not immune from its claims. (Id. at p. 3.) Given that the SAC explicitly states that Plaintiff is seeking damages caused by Defendant in prosecution of Plaintiff, these claims are precisely the types of claims that section 821.6 addresses. (Ibid.) Plaintiff also argues that Defendant is liable for the actions of the Los Angeles Police Department; however, the Los Angeles Police Department operates under the City of Los Angeles and Plaintiff cites no legal basis for his statement. (Ibid.) Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs additional causes of action, including prosecutorial misconduct, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, harassment, discrimination, excessive force, abuse of power, assault, and battery, are derivative of the malicious prosecution claim and are also barred by immunity. (Reply p. 4.) Defendant notes that it does not find that these claims are properly pled in the SAC. (Ibid.) d. Analysis Having reviewed the SAC, Demurrer, Opposition, and Reply, the Court makes the following findings. Under California Rule of Court, Rule 2.112: Each separately stated cause of action, count, or defense must specifically state: (1) [i]ts number&(2) [i]ts nature. Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10, subdivision (a)(1), states that a complaint shall contain a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language. Although a court, must look to the allegations in the body of the complaint to determine whether a set of alleged facts constitutes a cause of action, there must be some indication of what cause of action and elements are being pleaded. (People ex rel. Feuer v. Superior Court (Cahuengas the Spot) (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1376.) A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the pleading is so unclear that the responding party cannot reasonably determine what issues to admit or deny or what counts and claims are directed toward the responding party. (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) However, [a]s the leading practical treatise advises, failure to comply with rule 2.112 presumably renders a complaint subject to a motion to strike (Code of Civ. Proc., § 436), or a special demurrer for uncertainty. (Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 996, 1014 (citing Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: CPBT (Rutter Group 2016), ¶6:113). Similarly, a pleading is subject to a demurrer for uncertainty, when it is unintelligible by attempt[ing] to state numerous causes of action in a very loose and rambling manner without any attempt at separately stating them. (Craig v. City of Los Angeles¿(1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 71, 73.) Here, the SAC does not clearly set forth each separately stated cause of action and allegations in support of these claims. Instead, Plaintiff cites to numerous state and federal laws along with factual statements scattered throughout the SAC without any systematic organization. Given that the Court cannot discern what specific causes of action are being asserted against Defendant and the fact that Defendant itself is making assumptions regarding the pleadings, the Court finds that the pleadings are uncertain. Accordingly, the Court sustains Defendants Demurrer as to the entire Second Amended Complaint with 20 days leave to amend. The Court rules as follows as to the motions filed by Plaintiff Joshua Dewey Stockton: (1) Motion to Quash Opposition to Demurrer (as an Opposition to Defendants Demurrer) is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. (2) Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT. (3) Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT. (4) Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT. (5) Second Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT. (6) Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. (7) Motion to Compel Discovery is DENIED; (8) Motion for Mandatory Settlement Conference is DENIED without prejudice. Background On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff Joshua Dewey Stockton (Plaintiff), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendant Los Angeles County (Defendant or County). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on March 4, 2024. Subsequently, following stipulation by the parties, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on May 3, 2024, which is the operative pleading in this action. Plaintiffs complaint arises from criminal proceedings brought against him in Los Angeles County and allegations that he sustained damages as a result of these proceedings. On June 21, 2024, Defendant County filed a Demurrer to the Complaint. On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Demurrer, erroneously titled as Motion to Quash Opposition to Defendants Demurrer. Plaintiff filed another Opposition to Demurrer on August 26, 2024. On August 27, 2024, Defendant filed a Reply. On July 1, August 1, and August 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed the following Motions: (1) Motion to Quash Opposition to Demurrer (as an Opposition to Defendants Demurrer); (2) Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint; (3) Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint; (4) Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, filed on July 1, 2024; (5) Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, filed on August 1, 2024; (6) Motion for Sanctions; (7) Motion to Compel Discovery; (8) Motion for Mandatory Settlement Conference. On August 21, 2024, Defendant filed oppositions to Plaintiffs Motions. On the same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Quash Defendants Oppositions. On August 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed several redundant oppositions to Defendants oppositions and replies. Motion to Quash Opposition to Demurrer On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Demurrer, erroneously titled Motion to Quash Opposition to Defendants Demurrer. This is not an independent motion, but rather a responsive brief, and the Court addressed this brief in its ruling on the Demurrer. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Quash Opposition to Demurrer is placed off calendar. Motions to Strike First Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint Plaintiff moves to strike the First Amended Complaint (FAC), filed on March 4, 2024, and Second Amended Complaint (SAC), filed on May 3, 2024. In opposition, Defendant argues that a motion to strike is not permitted in response to the partys own pleading and there is no purpose or value in striking prior complaints. First, there is no need to strike the FAC as a SAC was filed on May 3, 2024, following stipulation of the parties. Second, the Court has sustained Defendants Demurrer to the SAC. Plaintiff does not present any legal basis or explanation that would warrant striking the FAC or SAC. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motions to Strike the First and Second Amended Complaints are placed off calendar as moot. Motions for Leave to Amend Complaint Plaintiff has filed two motions for leave to amend the complaint, on July 1 and on August 1, 2024. Given that the Court has sustained Defendants Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint and will hearing from the parties at the demurrer hearing whether leave to amend should be granted, Plaintiffs motions are rendered MOOT and placed off calendar. Motion for Sanctions Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant for the arguments presented in the Demurrer. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to sanctions as a result of Defendants improper use of a demurrer to assert immunity to Plaintiffs claims. In opposition, Defendant argues that sanctions are not warranted as Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 permits a demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. A defense, such as governmental immunity, may be raised to show that the facts are insufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to reimbursem*nt of costs for preparing the motion as he is a self-represented party and has not provided any proof of costs incurred. The court finds that Plaintiff has not presented any legal basis for seeking sanctions against a party on the ground that the party asserted certain arguments in a demurrer. Moreover, a government entity may present the defense of immunity to show that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to constitute a cause of action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e). Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. Motion to Compel Discovery Plaintiff moves for a court order compelling Defendant to produce the following documents: court records and transcripts from cases BA433307, BA433875, and BA482518, dated May 8, 2019 to August 19, 2022. Defendant opposes the Motion on the grounds that Plaintiff never submitted a formal request to the County for these records, thus, the Motion is premature and procedurally inappropriate. Moreover, the requested records are available to the public and it would be equally burdensome for County to obtain these records. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs Motion constitutes misuse of the discovery process and County will be compelled to pursue sanctions for any further misuse of the discovery process. The court finds that Plaintiff has not presented any legal authority for the relief it seeks or shown that it has attempted to propound this discovery request on Defendant prior to filing the instant Motion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery is DENIED. Motion for Mandatory Settlement Conference Plaintiff moves for a mandatory settlement conference pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1380, subdivision (a). Plaintiff states that he does not wish to waste the Courts time and resources with a lengthy trial and instead, hopes to resolve the matter through a settlement conference. In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs request is grossly premature as the pleadings have not been finalized, a demurrer is set for hearing, and the parties have not conducted any discovery. Defendant argues that Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.245 states that a mandatory settlement conference shall be scheduled a sufficient time after the exchange of appraisals to allow the parties to conduct expert depositions and engage in settlement discussions. The parties cannot engage in good faith settlement discussions and address the issues in dispute at this stage in the proceedings. Given that the court has sustained Defendants Demurrer to the SAC and no discovery has taken place, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Motion is premature. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Mandatory Settlement Conference is DENIED without prejudice.
Ruling
Rudy Hernandez vs. Chukwuma Ubannwa
Aug 28, 2024 |C22-02067
C22-02067CASE NAME: RUDY HERNANDEZ VS. CHUKWUMA UBANNWA*HEARING ON MOTION FOR DISCOVERY FOR AN ORDER DEEMING PLTFS REQUESTS FORADMISSIONS SET 1FILED BY: HERNANDEZ, RUDY PINEDA*TENTATIVE RULING:*CASE #: C22902067Plaintiff’s motion deeming plaintiff’s request for admission, set 1 propounded on defendant JoseOsuna admitted is granted.Plaintiff’s motion for an order to deem requests for admission, set one admitted is granted. Motionwas unopposed and no RFA responses were served prior to the hearing. The court deems RFA, setone, admitted. Sanctions were not requested.
Ruling
PATRICK GARY BUSTOS vs. HARMONY COMMUNITIES INC., A CORPORATION
Jun 03, 2024 |23CV12974
On the court’s own motion Plaintiff’s fourteen (14) Motion(s) to Quash are continued to July 1, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 1. Plaintiff was provided a Notice of Failure to Comply with Amador Rule of Court 4.03(D) upon filing each the motion(s) and did not correct the defect by filing amended motion(s) or stipulation(s). Plaintiff is to submit amended motion(s) complying with the tentative ruling requirements prior to the next hearing date or submit a written stipulation. If a party intends to appear and contest the tentative ruling, they must notify the court by leaving a message at (209) 257-2692, and notify opposing counsel, no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day preceding the hearing. Unless a hearing is requested, this ruling is effective immediately. Neither further notice of the ruling nor a formal order per CRC 3.1312 is required.
Ruling
Mook, et al. vs. Jeantette
Sep 05, 2024 |22CV-0200414
MOOK, ET AL. VS. JEANTETTECase Number: 22CV-0200414This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of the case. An order to Show Cause issued on August 21,2024 and is scheduled for hearing on September 23, 2024. To avoid duplicative appearances, today’s hearing iscontinued to Monday, September 23, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63. No appearance is necessary ontoday’s calendar.
Document
Muhammad Farhad v. Murray Schaffner
Sep 03, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |523659/2024
Document
Alexander Bromberg v. Genesis Flooring Systems Llc
Aug 14, 2020 |Richard Montelione |Torts - Other Negligence (NEGLIGENT INSTALLATION) |Torts - Other Negligence (NEGLIGENT INSTALLATION) |515018/2020
Document
Mahamud Hasan v. Abbott Laboratories, Dl Peterson, Kathleen M Boody
Aug 26, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |523007/2024
Document
Jason James v. Kawana M. Rodriguez
Sep 03, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |523642/2024
Document
Seanpaul Reyes, James Scalzo v. City Of New York, New York City Police Department, Jonathan Ortega, Franklyn Guaman, Oscar Mancilla, Nicholas Sommella, John Or Jane Doe 1-3
Aug 24, 2024 |Torts - Other (Civil Rights - NYPD) |Torts - Other (Civil Rights - NYPD) |522947/2024
Document
Oscar Kitsis, Ada Kitsis v. Michael Krichevsky, Leonid Mandel, Yan Klig
Sep 03, 2024 |Torts - Other (Fraudulent Transfer) |Torts - Other (Fraudulent Transfer) |523691/2024
Document
Danielle Blickhahn v. Juana Polanco Cabrera, Boro Transit Inc., Shlomie Anbeh, Salim Arkalji
Aug 26, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |522964/2024
Document
Moshe Baruch, Denisse Montoya Rodriguez v. Michael Scamerony, Francois Desravines
Sep 03, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |523704/2024
