LASSEN SUPERIOR COURT
DEPARTMENT
TENTATIVE RULINGS
Hon. Stephen D. Bradbury,
Presiding
August 11, 2008
* * *
(NOTE TO COUNSEL
[Record Disclosures by
9:00
CALENDAR
#J5210
Juvenile
Review
Hearing: Permanency Review Report considered and approved.
#J5230
Juvenile
Review
Hearing: Permanency Review Report considered and approved.
#J5342
Juvenile
Dispositional
Hearing: Social Study considered and approved.
#J5347
Juvenile
Dispositional
Hearing: Social Study considered and approved.
#J5377
Juvenile
Dispositional
Hearing: Social Study considered and approved.
#J5203
Juvenile
First
Appearance Hearing re Violation of Probation.
#J5214
Juvenile
Continued Deferred Entry of Judgment Review Hearing:
The court has received and considered the supplemental report. The court finds
the failure to report was not the fault of the minor, and will terminate the
matter with dismissal. However, the supervising probation officer shall counsel
the probation officer signing the supplemental report on proper procedures and
documentation of contacts – the court will not expect a repeat of such a
situation.
10:00
CALENDAR
#J5111
Juvenile
Review
Hearing: Status Review Report considered and approved.
#J5167,
J5168
Juvenile
Review
Hearing: Status Review Report considered and approved.
#J5181
Juvenile
Status Hearing
on Contested Setting: Counsel to advise if matter will proceed to contested
hearing as scheduled.
#J5379
Juvenile
Change of
Plea Hearing: Matter set on stipulation of parties.
1:30
CALENDAR
#P7046
Conservatorship of Silva
Biennial
Review Hearing: The court has received and considered the court investigator’s
report, and finds the conservatorship continues to be necessary and
appropriate, the conservator is acting in the best interest of the conservatee,
and orders the conservatorship to continue. The clerk shall serve notice of the
next review hearing.
#P7366
Conservatorship of
Order to Show Cause re Failure to File Accounting:
Appearance and response.
#P7520
Conservatorship of Perez
Order to
Show Cause re Failure to File Accounting: Appearance and response.
#P7710
Estate of Bailey
Petition to Administer Estate: Granted.
#46990
Gencarelle v. Martinucci [Record Judicial Disclosure:
Demurrer to
Petitioner’s Complaint filed by Defendant Joy, Dale-Cesmat and ERA Realty: (1)
The court rules that the operative complaint is plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint, and will address the respective demurrers as against that pleading. (2)
The demurrer of defendants Joy, Joy Realty, and Dale-Cesmat to the plaintiffs’
cause of action for fraud (Second Cause of Action in FAC) is granted with
thirty days’ leave to amend. Acts constituting an action based on fraud must
specifically be plead to the effect that the court can determine whether a prima facia case has been shown (Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 C.2d
627.) Conclusory allegations not specifying what was said by whom or in what
manner lack the requisite specificity. (Morton
v. Loveman (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 712.) Here, plaintiffs have failed to
plead specific acts or words contended to be fraudulent. (3) The demurrer of defendants Joy, Joy Realty, and Dale-Cesmat to
the plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fifth causes of action (breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence) is overruled, the plaintiffs having sufficiently plead the actions
against the demurring defendants. (4) The demurrer of defendant Chicago
Title Company to the plaintiffs’ cause of action for fraud (Second Cause of
Action in FAC) is granted with thirty days’ leave to amend. Acts constituting
an action based on fraud must specifically be plead to the effect that the
court can determine whether a prima facia
case has been shown (Cooper v. Leslie
Salt Co. (1969) 70 C.2d 627.) Conclusory allegations not specifying what
was said by whom or in what manner lack the requisite specificity. (Morton v. Loveman (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d
712.) Here, plaintiffs have failed to plead specific acts or words contended to
be fraudulent. (5) The demurrer of defendant Chicago Title Company to
the plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fifth causes of action (breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence) is overruled, the plaintiffs having sufficiently plead the actions against
the demurring defendant. The allegations include the contention that the
demurring defendant “had an affirmative duty to inspect the preliminary title
report for inconsistencies with the liens and encumbrances of record and those
representations stated in the Purchase Agreement.” Defendant’s contention that they owed no duty
to plaintiffs as a matter of law is not a matter for determination on demurrer,
since it is the sufficiency of the pleadings to which the court looks. (6)
Respective counsel for demurring defendants shall prepare formal orders hereon
for submission to the court.
#47109
In the Matter of Patton
Order to Show Cause re Name Change: No proof of
publication on file as of date of file review.
#P6459
Conservatorship of Ball
11th Accounting and Report of
Conservator; Petition for Allowance of Fees: Settled and approved, fees allowed
as requested.
#SC45672
Barton v.
Court