LASSEN SUPERIOR COURT
DEPARTMENT ONE

TENTATIVE RULINGS

Hon. Stephen D. Bradbury, Presiding
August 11, 2008
* * *

(NOTE TO COUNSEL AND PARTIES: The court provides tentative rulings on law and motion matters only for information to the parties in preparation for the hearing. The court does NOT issue tentative rulings pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, and the procedure set out in that Rule does not apply.)

[Record Disclosures by Judge Bradbury: Mr. Daniel Bruce, is a court Guardianship/Conservatorship Investigator. Ms. Nina Dupont-Stone, M.A. is a court Mediator. Ms. Diane Tetreault, M.A. is a court Mediator. Mr. Jon Nakanishi is the court Family Law Facilitator. Judge Bradbury is a volunteer member of the Boy Scouts of America.]

Printable Version

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 Richardson

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: Judge Bradbury is acquainted with defendants Joy and Dale-Cesmat, the former having previously been a member of Susanville Rotary, to which Judge Bradbury belongs.]
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

11^th Accounting and Report of Conservator; Petition for Allowance of Fees: Settled and approved, fees allowed as requested.

#SC45672
Barton v. Dutra
Court’s Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions should not be Imposed for Failure to Comply with Court Order: Appearance and response.