Preview
R SCANNING- - RECENVED oR OR COURT F Maurice Javier 162255SUPERIOR COURT OF GAUIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURAATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (tame, State Bar atmber, anc acess): MAR 17 N22 FOR COURTUSE ONLYLaw Offices of Maurice M Javier1401 Commercial Way, Ste 120 AFTER 4:00 PM.Bakersfield, CA 93309veepuoneno: (918) 247-9905 Faxno/opiomy (818) 247-9906Bwacanoress (ono: Javierlaw27@gmail.comATTORNEY FOR (Meow): Plaintiff LYDIA A G PINGERsmreetaporsss 800 S Victoria Avemauxg scores: PO Box 6489, Ventura 93006-6489crvanozecou Ventura, CA 93009srncHiame: Ventura Hall of Justice PLAINTIFF: LYDIA A G PINGERDEFENDANT: ISLAND PACIFIC SDPERMARKET; ABACUS BUSS CAPITAL, INC;OOES 1 To SM.COMPLAINT-Parsonal [njuty, Property Damage, Wrongful DeathC2 AMENDED (Number):Type (check aif that apply):COD MOTOR VEHICLE §=[K] OTHER (specity: Premises LiabilityCC) Property Damage Wrongful Death :(QQ Personal Injury Other Damages (specify): Jurlediction (check al that apply): CASE NUMBER:Cl ACTION Is A LIMITED CIVIL CASEAmountdemanded [_} does not exceed $10,000(L} exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $25,000(QQ ACTION Is AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceetis $25,000)CD ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaintfram Ilmited to unlimitedfrom unlimited to limited 1.eyPlatntift (name ornames): LYDIA A G PINGERalleges causes of action againstdefendant (name or names): ISLAND EACIFIC SUPZRMARKET; ABACDS BUSS CAPITAL, INC?This pleading, including attachments and exhibits. consists of the following number of pages: 5Each plaintif namad above is a competent aduita. C2) except plaintiff (name):(1) CX a corporation qualified fo do business in Califoria2) _] an unincorporated entity (describe):(3) C) a public entity (describe):(4) CQ aminor (CQ anadutt(e) (22 for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or 2 guardian ad titem has been appainted(b) CD) other (specify): .48) (Cy other (specity):b. (2) excent plaintiff (rama):ay a corporation qualified to do busingss in Calffomiaee an unincorporated entity (descifbe):8 a public entity (describe):4) aminor [] enaduttKy (a) 2) for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad Item has been appointedYa Information about additional plaintiffs who are not competant aduky is shown in Attachment 3.Fy ferrovael fr Opera] Ure | COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property (Coda 0 Gin) Procedure, § 425.12veer Mara CEB | pest ; aes(0) CC} other (specify):(© (2) other (speaty):Damage, Wrongful Death Pinger, LydiaPaget ota: . : PLO-PI001SHORT TITLE: GASE NUMBER.Pinger vs Island Pacific, et al4. LL) Plaintift (name):is doing business under the fictitious name (specify): and has complied with the fictitious business name laws,5. Each defendant named above Is @ naturel persona. Ed except defendant (name): c. (23 except defendant (name):Island Pacific Supermarketqa) a business organization, form unknown q) {.) abusiness organization, form unknown(2) a corporation (2) (J a comoration(3) CE an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) (CY en unincomporated entity (desortbe):4) CD a publicentity (¢eserite): (4) CD a public entity (¢escviba):©) (2) other (speaty): (6) ©) other (speaity):b. (K) except defendant (name): . d. () oxcept defendant (name):Abacus Buss Capital, Ine(1) a ‘@ business crganization, form unknown a) oO business Organization, form unknown(2) EQ) a comoration (2} (] acorporation(3) LC) an unincorporated entity (describe): @) C2) an unincorporated entity (describe):(4) CC) a public entity (describe): : (4) (2) 2 public entity (desenbe):© (QQ aher(speaity): (3) (other (specify):(C2 Information about additional defendants who ara not natura! persons is contained In Attachment 5.6. The true names of defendants sued as Does are unknown to plaintiff.a. [) Doe detendants (spectty Doe numbers): 1 to 25 ___were the agents or employees of othernamed defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment.b. (XQ Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): 26 to 50 ____are persons whose capacities are unknown tofalnttf.70 petendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names):8. This courtis the proper court becausea. (2) atieast one defendant now resides in its jurisdictional area.b. (2) the principal ptace of business of a defendant corporation ar unincorporated association is in its jurisdictional area.c. [X) injury to person or damage to personal property occurred in its junsdictional area,9. CQ other (specify):9. (2) Pletntiffis required te comply with a claims statute, and2. 2) has complied with applicable claims statules, orb. ] is excused from complying because (specify): PLO-PLOM [Rev, darasary 1. 2007] COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Page2zofsGB |e Damage, Wrongful Death Pinger, Lydia- . : PLD-PI004SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:Pinger vs Island Pacific, et al 10. The following causes of action are attached and tha statements above apply to each (aach comp/aint must have one or morecausas of action attached):a. [J Motor Vehicleb. (X] General Negligencece [) intentional Tortd. (2) Products Liabilitye. [Q] Premises Liability£. (CQ Other (specify) :41. Plaintiff has suffared. wago [088(CD toss of use of property(RJ hospital and medical expensesTZ general damage(2) property damage& (2) toss of earning capacityg. (CB other damage (specify) :paoge42. (I The damages claimed for wrongful death and tha relationships of plaintiff to the deceased area. (1D listed in Attachment 12.b. (CD as follows:43. The relief sought In this complaint Is within the jurisdiction af this court.14, Plaintiff prays for Judgment for casts of suit; for such relief as is fair, Just, and equitable; and fora. (1) (Q) compensatory damages(2) CL) punitive damagesThe amount of damages |s fin cases for personal injury or wrongful death, you Must check (1):(1) CX¥ according to proof(2) () in the amount of $45. (X) The paragraphs of this complaint slleged on information and belief are as follows (specify paragm@ph numbers):1,5a,5b,6a,6b; Prem L-1,L-2,L-3,L-4,L-5 a,b; GN-1pate: March 15, 2022 marr ConMaurice Javier »(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) {SIGN PLARTIFF OR ATTORNEY)PLOWPLOO! IRev. Janumry 1, 2007] COMPLAINT-Personal tury, Property Pom SotsCEB Eepentia Damage, Wrongful Death Pinger, LydiaPLD-PI-004(4) SHORT TITLE: CAGE NUMBER,Pinger vs Island Pacific, et al ——Eirst 4... ss CAUSE OF ACTION - Premises Liability Page 4{number}ATTACHMENT TO [XJ Complaint [23 Cross-Complaint(Use a separate ceuse.of action form for each cause of action.)Prem.L-1, Plaintiff (namo): LYDIA A G PINGERalleges the acts of defendants were the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff,On (date): May 7, 2020 plaintiff was injured on the following premfses in the foflowingfashion (description of premises end circ*mstances of injury):Plaintiff Lydia Pinger was in or near the vegetable aisleinside Island Pacific Supermarket in Oxnard, California whenshe slipped and fell on the wet floor. She was allegedlyverbally warned by some workers about some work they weredoing/something needed fixing but there were no signs orcordoning off of the area. Plaintiff did'nt know orunderstood which area she was not supposed to go.Prem.L-2. (XJ Count One-Negligence The defendants who negligently owned, maintained, managed and operatedthe described premises were (names):Island Pacific Supermarket; Abacus Buss Capital, Inc[XB Does 2 = to_50Prem.L-3. [J Count Two-willtul Failure to Wam [Civil Code section 846] The defendant owners who willfully ormaliciously failed to guard or wam against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity were(names. Island Pacific Supermarket; Abacus BussCapital, Inc(I) bos _ 1s to SQL ESPlaintiff, a recreational user, was [_] an invited quest (} a paying guest.Prem.i-4. (() Count Three-Dangeraus Condition of Public Property The defendants who owned public property anwhich a dangerous condition existed were (names):C) Does foa.() Thedefendantpublicentityhad F) actual (2) consteuctirenotice ofthe existence of thedangerous condition in sufficient time prior to the iojury to have corrected itb. 3 The condition was created by employees of the defendant public entity.Prem.L-5. a. (Q] Allegations about Other Defendants The defendants who were the agents and employees of the otherdefendants and acted within the scope of the agency were (names):Island Pacific Supermarket; Abacus Buss Capital, Inc Gy deoss 1 sit SSb. (XJ The defendants who are liable to plaintiffs for other reasons and the reasons for their liability are(C) described tn attachment Prem.L-5.b as follows (names):Island Pacific Supermarket; Abacus Russ Capital, Inc and DOES 1 to 50.Plaintiff will amend this complaint as soon as the other reasons fortheir liability are ascertained.Pageiotteee CAUSE OF ACTION - Premises Liability “ OcoeePLD-PEO01(4) (Rew. January 1, 2007], - 5‘CER \ Beets . Pinger, Lydia: PLD-PI-001{2)SHORT TITLE: .Pinger vs Island Pacific, et al ~_Second _. _ _ CAUSE OF ACTION- General Negligence = page 5(number)ATTACHMENT TO [XQ Comptaint (2) cross-Complaint{Use @ separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)GN-1. Plaintiff (name): LYDIA A G PINGERalleges that defendant (name): IsLaxp PACIFIC SUPERMARKET; ABACUS BUSS CAPITAL, IXCCoes I tSwas the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. By the following acts or omissions to ect, defendantnegligently caused the damage to plaintiffon(date!: On or about May 7, 2020 :at (place?) Island Pacific Supermarket at 4833 S Rose Ave, Oxnard, CA(description of reasons for liability) :Defendants, their agents and employees has a general duty totheir invitees to maintain a safe environment and adequatelywarn them of dangerous conditions of the premises thatdefendants and their employess and/or agents could havediscovered with excercise of due diligence and could haveproperly warned plaintiff about said dangerous condition oxrepair going on in the premises. Defendants, and theiremployees failure to property maintain and warn plaintiif of adangerous condition existing on their premises is the legalcause of plaintiff slipping and falling on the west floorthereby causing injuries to plaintiff requirering medicaltreatments, causing permanent disabilties and loss ofenjoyment of life to plaintiff.Page tortFam Approved for Use C ACTION- Gen ice Cote of Civil Procedure 425.1PLO PPS te easy 1 2007] CEB’ | Essential ‘wm, court ea.edheoen | E)Fourne Pinger, Lydia
Related Contentin Ventura County
Case
2024CUHR028558 PENNY A AMUNDSEN vs PAMFILA JOHANSEN
Aug 16, 2024 |Dusty Kawai |Civil Unlimited |Civil Unlimited |2024CUHR028558
Case
2024CUBC026840 ROBERT MURILLO vs GUADALUPE SOLIS
Jul 11, 2024 |Mark S. Borrell |Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint |Civil Unlimited |2024CUBC026840
Case
2024PRDE027209
Sep 05, 2024 |Hearing on Petition for Letters of Administration |2024PRDE027209
Case
2024CUCR023981 ANTHONY BOUYER vs VENTURA RIVIERA AMBER RETAI...
Apr 22, 2024 |Matthew P. Guasco |Civil Unlimited |Civil Unlimited |2024CUCR023981
Case
2024CUPA028237 MICAELA DE LA TORRE vs JOSEPH ZENEN GOMEZ
Aug 06, 2024 |Henry J. Walsh |Civil Unlimited |Civil Unlimited |2024CUPA028237
Case
2023PRDE011363
Sep 04, 2024 |Hearing on Petition for Waiver of Accounting and Final Distribution |2023PRDE011363
Case
2024CUPT027047 IN THE MATTER OF BROOKLYNN MARIE DIERSING
Jul 17, 2024 |Mark S. Borrell |Civil Unlimited |Civil Unlimited |2024CUPT027047
Case
2024CUPP029265 JOHN ROE EB 67 vs DOE 1, et al.
Aug 23, 2024 |Mark S. Borrell |Civil Unlimited |Civil Unlimited |2024CUPP029265
Case
ANDREW MONTENEGRO, et al. vs UNITED STATES YOUTH VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE
2021SC004535
Ruling
2023PRCE012888
Sep 03, 2024 |Roger L. Lund |Hearing re: Order to Show Cause Failure to File Inventory and Appraisal |2023PRCE012888
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Probate Notes 2023PRCE012888: IN THE MATTER OF TERESA DIGIACOMO 09/03/2024 in Department J6 Hearing re: Order to Show Cause Failure to File Inventory and AppraisalOn 7/18/24, the court set an OSC re Failure to File the Inventory & Appraisal.As of 08/29/24 the Inventory & Appraisal has not been filed. Unless the Inventory & Appraisalis filed before the hearing, the court intends to set an OSC re Failure to File Inventory &Appraisal for 12/17/24, at 9:00AM in Dept. J6.No appearance required.The clerk shall give notice._______________________The Court uses Zoom exclusively for remote appearances in Department J6. For information onthe Zoom procedures, and for general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rulesand procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.
Ruling
2024PRDE026907
Sep 05, 2024 |Roger L. Lund |Hearing on Petition for Letters of Administration |2024PRDE026907
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Probate Notes 2024PRDE026907: IN THE MATTER OF ELVIA PINEDO 09/05/2024 in Department J6 Hearing on Petition for Letters of AdministrationDuties & Liabilities (DE-147) not filed.The court intends to grant the petition and appoint Alejandro Pinedoadministrator of the estate of Elvia Pinedo with full IAEA authority and bondwaived._________________The Court uses Zoom exclusively for remote appearances in Department J6. For information on the Zoomprocedures, and for general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit:http://www.judgerogerlund.com.
Ruling
201900526865PRCE
Sep 06, 2024 |Roger L. Lund |Court's Order to Show Cause Re: Filing Petition |201900526865PRCE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Probate Notes 201900526865PRCE: In The Matter Of Jermaine Lamar Padilla 09/06/2024 in Department J6 Court's Order to Show Cause Re: Filing PetitionThe Public Guardian has filed a petition for appointment as successorconservator. The Court will place this hearing off calendar.The Court uses Zoom exclusively for remote appearances in Department J6. Forinformation on the Zoom procedures, and for general information regardingJudge Lund and his _ courtroom rules and procedures, please visit:http://www.judgerogerlund.com.
Ruling
2023PRLP015983
Sep 03, 2024 |Roger L. Lund |Hearing re: Order to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service re: Determination of Conservatee's Appropriate Level of Care (GC-355) |2023PRLP015983
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Probate Notes 2023PRLP015983: IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL STANTON 09/03/2024 in Department J6 Hearing re: Order to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service re: Determination of Conservatee's Appropriate Level of Care (GC-355)On 7/17/24, the court set an OSC re Failure to File POS re Care Plan.Determination of Conservatee’s Appropriate Level of Care was filed on 07/24/24 and the POSfor Notice of filing was filed on 08/20/24.No appearance required.The clerk shall give notice._______________________The Court uses Zoom exclusively for remote appearances in Department J6. For information onthe Zoom procedures, and for general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rulesand procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.
Ruling
2023PRCE012205
Sep 03, 2024 |Roger L. Lund |Hearing re: Order to Show Cause Failure to File Inventory and Appraisal |2023PRCE012205
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Probate Notes 2023PRCE012205: IN THE MATTER OF DONNA LEE LOPATY 09/03/2024 in Department J6 Hearing re: Order to Show Cause Failure to File Inventory and AppraisalOn 7/18/24, the court set an OSC re Failure to File the Inventory & Appraisal.Inventory & Appraisal and notice of filing were filed on 08/16/24. The court finds thesedocuments are complete and no bond is required.The previously set hearing on the annual status report shall remain on calendar for 11/19/24 at10:30AM in Dept. J6.No appearance required.The clerk shall give notice._______________________The Court uses Zoom exclusively for remote appearances in Department J6. For information onthe Zoom procedures, and for general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rulesand procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.
Ruling
2023CUBC016850 PHYLLIS ANNETTE SAUCIER, et... vs JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AME...
Sep 03, 2024 |Ronda J. McKaig |Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions |2023CUBC016850
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling2023CUBC016850: PHYLLIS ANNETTE SAUCIER, et al. vs JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et al. 09/03/2024 in Department 41Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Request for Monetary SanctionsMotion: Plaintiffs Phyllis Annette Saucier and Colemon Saucier Jr.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for SanctionsTentative Ruling:Plaintiffs’ moving brief violates California Rules of Court rule 3.1113, subdivision (d) in that itexceeds the 15-page limit as set forth therein. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to adhere to theRules of Court, the Court intends to CONTINUE the hearing to September 20, 2024 at 8:20AMand Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve a compliant brief by no later than September 11, 2024.No new arguments shall be included in the revised brief.In the interim, the parties should continue to meet and confer and keep the following in mind: 1. The Court has, in the past, granted motions seeking the type of discovery sought in this motion. 2. The Court expects strict compliance with the Rules of Court and the Discovery Act, including full compliance with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 when a party claims an inability to comply. 3. Attorney client privilege/work product/trade secret protections will not be waived provided they are identified on a compliant privilege log unless the parties agree to a different arrangement. 4. The parties can and should be able to resolve the instant discovery dispute without intervention from the Court.
Ruling
2023PRCE015846
Sep 03, 2024 |Roger L. Lund |Hearing re: Order to Show Cause Failure to File Inventory and Appraisal |2023PRCE015846
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Probate Notes 2023PRCE015846: IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA MARULLO 09/03/2024 in Department J6 Hearing re: Order to Show Cause Failure to File Inventory and AppraisalOn 7/18/24, the court set an OSC re Failure to File the Inventory & Appraisal.Two Inventory & Appraisals were filed on 08/27/24. Notice of filing has not yet been filed.The first Inventory & Appraisal for the temporary period (10/31/23) indicates the estate is valuedat $418,873.22. ($173,000 on attachment one, and a mobile home valued at $245,000 onattachment two).The second Inventory & Appraisal used 01/12/24, the date of appointment, and indicates theestate is only valued at $250,000. ($0 on attachment one, and a mobile home valued at $250,000on attachment two).Counsel to explain the differences on attachment one. Where did the cash go? The bond of$181,500 is insufficient. Counsel to provide bond calculation to the court.Discuss and set bond.The clerk shall give notice._______________________The Court uses Zoom exclusively for remote appearances in Department J6. For information onthe Zoom procedures, and for general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rulesand procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.
Ruling
2024CUPP023053 ANICA BARBOSA vs O'NEIL MCINNIS, et al.
Sep 05, 2024 |Ronda J. McKaig |Demurrer to the Complaint for Defendant Jessica Zylak |2024CUPP023053
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2024CUPP023053: ANICA BARBOSA vs O'NEIL MCINNIS, et al. 09/05/2024 in Department 41 DemurrersMotions: 1. Defendant Jessica Zylak’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (Opposed) 2. Defendant Stepanie White’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (Opposed)Tentative Rulings:The Court intends to SUSTAIN Defendants Jessica Zylak and Stephaine White’s Demurrers toPlaintiff’s Complaint. Insufficient facts are stated to support the causes of action for abuse ofprocess, IIED and conspiracy to commit abuse of process against Defendants. (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 430.10, subd. (e).)At the hearing, Plaintiff shall be prepared to identify specific facts that can be pled to cure thedeficiencies identified in the demurrers. If Plaintiff is unable to identify such facts, thedemurrers will be sustained without leave to amend.Defendants to give notice.The Court notes that the parties have failed to file a notice of related case in the lead case (orstate the correct case number).Analysis:Demurrers GenerallyA demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings; it raises issues oflaw, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party’s pleading. (Code of Civ.Proc. § 589; see Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 964.)A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading underattack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan(1985) 39 Cal.3d 311.) Consideration of extrinsic evidence by the court is error. (Ion Equip.Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.)A demurrer is brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 [grounds], section 430.30[as to any matter on its face or from which judicial notice may be taken], and section 430.50(a)[can be taken to the entire complaint or any cause of action within]. Specifically, a demurrer maybe brought per Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts arestated to support the cause of action asserted. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10,subdivision (a) a demurrer may be brought where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of 2024CUPP023053: ANICA BARBOSA vs O'NEIL MCINNIS, et al.the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Furthermore, demurrer for uncertainty will besustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond.(Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (f).)Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and should only be sustained where the complaint is sobad that the demurring defendant cannot reasonably respond thereto. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif.,Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrer for uncertainty is insufficient unless itspecifies how the targeted pleading is uncertain. (Coons v. Thompson (1946) 75 Cal.App.2d 687,690.) When the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of theissues to be met, a demurrer to the complaint on the ground of uncertainty should be overruled.(Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 n.2.)However, in construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegationsthat may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations. (Financial Corporationof America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769.) And, if the facts pled in the complaintare inconsistent with facts which are incorporated by reference from exhibits attached to thecomplaint, the facts in the incorporated exhibits control. (Holland v. Morse Diesel Int’l, Inc.(2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447.) Further, irrespective of the name or label given to a cause ofaction by the plaintiff, a general demurrer must be overruled if the facts as pled in the body of thecomplaint state some valid claim for relief. (Quelimane Co. Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co.(1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39.)Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successfulamendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on thecomplainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)The demurrers are brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e),not (f). Specifically:1. 1st Cause of Action for Abuse of ProcessIt appears that Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant McInnis committed perjury in the underlyingfamily law matter and that the Defendants failed and refused to follow proper procedures in theunderlying family law matter by failing to file code-compliant motions for reconsideration as tocertain rulings by the family law judge, and by purportedly delaying in turning over somedocuments and having a “cavalier” attitude. These allegations are not sufficient to state a causeof action for abuse of process.Per S.A. v. Maiden (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 27, 41, as modified on denial of reh’g (Sept. 11,2014): “The common law tort of abuse of process arises when one uses the court’s process for a purpose other than that for which the process was designed. [Citations.] It has been ‘interpreted broadly to encompass the entire range of “procedures” incident to litigation.’ [Citation.] [¶] ‘[T]he essence of the tort [is] ... misuse of the power of the court; it is an act done in the name of the court and under its authority for the purpose of perpetrating 2024CUPP023053: ANICA BARBOSA vs O'NEIL MCINNIS, et al. an injustice.’ [Citation.] To succeed in an action for abuse of process, a litigant must establish that the defendant (1) contemplated an ulterior motive in using the process, and (2) committed a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings.” (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1056, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 516, 128 P.3d 713.)“A cause of action for abuse of process cannot be viable absent some harm to the plaintiff causedby the abuse of process.” (Yee v. Superior Court (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 26, 37.)Here the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for abuse of process againsteither Jessica Zylak and/or Stephanie White. Specifically, there are insufficient allegations thateither Defendant had an “ulterior motive” or that they committed acts that misused the power ofthe court and that fall outside the scope of generally accepted litigation conduct, and/or that arenot immunized by the litigation privilege. Nor does Plaintiff articulate how the specific acts ofwhich she complains caused damages.The Court exercised its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s untimely opposition. The oppositionfails to identify any facts that could be pled in support of this claim. Plaintiff should beprepared to identify such facts at the hearing. Otherwise, the Court intends to sustain thedemurrer with prejudice.2. 2nd Cause of Action for IIEDTo state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must allege:(1) outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) the defendant’s intention of causing or recklessdisregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) the plaintiff s suffering severe orextreme emotional distress; and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress bythe defendant’s outrageous conduct. (Yau v. Santa Margarita Ford, Inc., (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th144, 160.) For conduct to be “outrageous”, it must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of thatusually tolerated in a civilized society. (Ibid.)In evaluating whether the defendant’s conduct was outrageous, it is “not enough that thedefendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended toinflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by ‘malice,’ or adegree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort.Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and soextreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded asatrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” (Cochran v. Cochran, (1998) 65Cal.App.4th 488, 496 [citations omitted].) Further, the tort does not extend to “mere insults,indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.” Id. at 496.)Here, Plaintiff fails to allege facts that meet this high standard. The allegations are conclusoryand fail to identify each Defendant’s purported role in the conduct. This is inadequate.Again, unless Plaintiff identifies specific facts that can be pled to cure this deficiency, the Courtintends to sustain the demurrers to this claim without leave to amend. 2024CUPP023053: ANICA BARBOSA vs O'NEIL MCINNIS, et al.3. 3rd Cause of Action for Conspiracy to Commit Abuse of ProcessConclusory allegations of “conspiracy” will not withstand demurrer. To allege a conspiracy, aplaintiff must plead: (1) formation and operation of the conspiracy and (2) damage resulting toplaintiff, (3) from a wrongful act done in furtherance of the common design. (Daniels v. SelectPortfolio Servicing, Inc., supra, 246 CA4th at 1173, 201 CR3d at 411; State of Calif. ex rel. Metzv. CCC Information Services, Inc. (2007) 149 CA4th 402, 419, 57 CR3d 156, 168—allegationthat “defendants conspired to conceal their improper loss valuations” was bare legal conclusion.)Here, the allegations relating to any alleged conspiracy are unclear and appear to relate to atrespass and the presence of the defendants at a certain property. It is unclear how or why thiswould constitute a conspiracy to commit an abuse of process and why this purported claimwould not be barred by the litigation privilege.Plaintiff’s opposition does not explain how this defect can be cured. Unless Plaintiff canidentify specific facts that can be pled to address this deficiency, the Court intends to sustain thedemurrer without leave to amend.
Document
HAKIMZADEH vs CITY OF OAKLAND
Aug 22, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |Civil Unlimited (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |24CV088338
Document
Jul 02, 2024 |David E Driscoll |Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited |Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited |CIVSB2420716
Document
Poole VS Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc.
Sep 27, 2017 |Winifred Younge Smith |Unlimited Civil |Civil Unlimited (Claims Involving Mass Tort) |RG17876798
Document
BECKER -v- Dollar Tree Store et al Print
Aug 20, 2024 |Tony Raphael |Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited |Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited |CIVSB2425792
Document
Poole VS Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc.
Sep 27, 2017 |Winifred Younge Smith |Unlimited Civil |Civil Unlimited (Claims Involving Mass Tort) |RG17876798
Document
NAVA vs VASQUEZ
Aug 21, 2024 |Somnath Raj Chatterjee |Civil Unlimited (Personal Injury/Property Dama...) |Civil Unlimited (Personal Injury/Property Dama...) |24CV088221
Document
Anderson -v- Forrest et al Print
Aug 28, 2023 |Corey G Lee |Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited |Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited |CIVSB2320244
Document
Jul 26, 2018 |Winifred Younge Smith |Unlimited Civil |Civil Unlimited (Construction Defect) |RG18914470
