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: 10/30/2014 at 10:28am



The Tentative Rulings for Thursday, October 30, 2014 are:

 

Re:             Gillespie v. Hoffman, Individually and as Trustee

Case No:   VCU238961

Date:         October 30, 2014

Time:        8:30 A.M. 

Dept.        2 - The Honorable Lloyd Hicks

Motion:     Motion by Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants for Order Vacating and Setting Aside Interlocutory Judgment of August 5, 2014

Tentative Ruling:  To Deny the Motion by Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants for Order Vacating and Setting Aside Interlocutory Judgment of August 5, 2014.

Movants’ request for relief consists of an improper and untimely challenge to a prior ruling in this case entered by Judge Vortmann on October 15, 2013.  Further, Movants’ challenges to Judge Vortmann’s ruling have been previously considered and denied by this court.  Movants’ argument submitted in support of this motion is not sufficient to establish that any portion of the court’s ruling of August 5, 2014 was incorrect or made on any erroneous legal basis for purposes of CCP 663.
 
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:           Silva v. College of the Sequoias 
                   
Case No: VCU251833

Date:       October 30, 2014

Time:       8:30 A.M. 

Dept.       2 - The Honorable Lloyd Hicks

Motion:    Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint to Bring in New Party Defendant

Tentative Ruling:    To Grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint to Bring in New Party Defendant and to Order Plaintiff to file his First Amended Complaint for Personal Injury within five (5) days of notice of this order.

The parties have stipulated that Plaintiff may amend his pleading to name a new party defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.  Notice of the motion was adequate.  A proposed amended pleading was included with the moving papers as required.  Amendment is appropriate under CCP 379(c). 

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:              Crawford, et al. v. Pollock, et al.

Case No.:   VCU 255433

Date:          October 30, 2014                             

Time:         8:30 A.M.

Dept.         2 –The Honorable Lloyd L. Hicks
 
Motion:     Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Compelling Defendant Michael Pollock’s Further Responses to Request for Admissions 17 and 21 and/or Deem Requests Admitted and for Sanctions

Tentative Ruling:  To deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Compelling Defendant Michael Pollock’s Further Responses to Request for Admissions 17 and 21 and/or Deem Requests Admitted and for Sanctions.

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and/or requests for admissions must be noticed within 45 days after verified responses to the discovery requests were served.  See CCP 2030.300(c); CCP 2033.290(c)   Delaying the motion beyond the 45-day time limit waives the right to compel further responses to the interrogatories or requests for admissions. CCP 2030.300(c); CCP 2033.290(c) See Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (Halpern) (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681,685 (court lacks jurisdiction to order further answers after 45 days)

Here, defendant Michael Pollock served his original responses to plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories and first set of requests for admissions on June 27, 2014. Where plaintiffs did not notice their motion to compel further responses to these discovery requests until September 29, 2014, well beyond the 45 day limit of CCP 2030.300(c) and CCP 2033.290(c), the Court does not have jurisdiction to compel further responses from defendant Michael Pollock to plaintiff’s first sets of form interrogatories and requests for admissions.

The Court also notes that on September 25, 2014 plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the same discovery requests that are at issue in this present discovery motion. That motion was denied without prejudice based on the moving parties’ failure to comply with California Rule of Court 3.1345 (i.e., failure to provide a separate statement of discovery items in dispute with the moving papers.)

Notwithstanding that this Court’s September 25 order was issued without prejudice, that order did not grant an extension to plaintiffs to file an amended discovery motion to cure the procedural defects in their original discovery motion nor to notice an amended motion beyond the 45-day limits set forth in CCP 2030.300(c) and CCP 2033.290(c).

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling defendant Michael Pollock’s further responses to Request for Admissions 17 and 21 and/or deem requests admitted and for sanctions is denied in its entirety.

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:              People of the State of California v. United States Fire Ins. Co., et al.

Case No.:   VCU 257707/VCF 286395B

Date:          October 30, 2014                             

Time:          8:30 A.M.

Dept.         10 –The Honorable Gary L. Paden

Motion:      Motion of United States Fire Ins. Co. to Set Aside Summary Judgment, Vacate the Bond Forfeiture and Exonerate the Bond

Tentative Ruling:  To deny the Motion of United States Fire Ins. Co. to Set Aside Summary Judgment, Vacate the Bond Forfeiture and Exonerate the Bond

The Court finds that the defendant (Surety/Bail Agent) had exhausted its time to locate and return the criminal defendant to the Court and that Summary Judgment was properly entered by the Court after the time period for returning the defendant to the Court had expired.

The Court served the Notice of Forfeiture to the Bail Agent and Surety on August 28, 2013.  Under Penal Code §1305, the Bail Agent/Surety had 180 days (plus an additional five days under CCP 1013 as service of the notice was by mail) to return the criminal defendant to the Court.  This 185 day period expired on March 1, 2014.

On March 25, 2014, the Court granted the Bail Agent/Surety’s motion to extend the time to return the criminal defendant to the Court for an additional 180 days as authorized by Penal Code §1305.4.  

The Bail Agent/Surety contends that this 180-day extension begins at the time of the Court’s order of March 25, 2014 that granted this extension.  But California law is clear that any 180-day extension granted under §1305.4 runs from the expiration of the original 180-day period following service of the Notice of Forfeiture on the Bail Agent/Surety:

“We are of the opinion that the Legislature intended section 1305.4 to allow an extension of no more than 180 days past the 180-day period set forth in section 1305.  The alternative interpretation provided by appellant would permit the bail agent to obtain a new extension every 180 days, and drag the forfeiture period on indefinitely. This would violate the policy and spirit of the statutory framework within which section 1305.4 is found which strongly favors limiting the amount of time a surety has to challenge forfeiture.”   See People v. Billingslea (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1199.”  

Where §1305.4 allows an extension of no more than 180 days from the expiration of the original 180/185 period provided under §1305, the maximum time that the Bail Agent/Surety could properly have been granted (absent circumstances that justify a tolling of the statute) to justify vacating the forfeiture and exonerating the bond was 365 days – from August 28, 2013 to August 28, 2014.   See People v. Bankers Insurance Co. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1377. 

Therefore, the Court would not have had jurisdiction to grant an additional 180-day extension to the Bail Agent/Surety under §1305.4 even if they had calendared the motion to be heard before August 28, 2014, when the only extension permitted under §1305.4 was to expire.

The Court also properly granted summary judgment to the People on September 3, 2014. 

As noted above, the Court did not have discretion under Penal Code §1305.4 to grant the Bail Agent/Surety’s September 25, 2014 motion for an additional extension to return the criminal defendant to the Court. Under Penal Code §1306, if summary judgment is not entered within 90 days after the date upon which it may first be entered –in this case, on August 28, 2014 – the People’s right to do so expires and the bail is exonerated. See People v. Bankers Life, at 1377.

In this present case, the 90-day period to enter summary judgment began on August 28, 2014, when the 180-day extension period specified in Penal Code §1305 expired without the forfeiture having been set aside.

Thus, the Court properly entered Summary Judgment for this action on September 3, 2014 in compliance with Penal Code §1306.

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