Civil & Probate

-ADR
  ADR Forms
  ADR FAQ's


-Case Management
  Mediation Panel
  Case Management Forms

-Probate
  Probate FAQ's

-Tentative Rulings




Tentative Rulings, Nevada City - Law and Motion

>Case No. CU13-079381, Warren v. Spencer, 1/23/2015
>Case No. CU13-079342, Block v. Isis Group, 1/23/2015
>Case No. CU14-080722, Sorensen v. Shock, 1/23/2015

Case No. CU13-079381, Warren v. Spencer, 1/23/2015 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Costs is continued on the court’s own motion to January 30, 2015, at 10:00 am in Dept. 6, to be heard with Defendant’s Motion to Strike Costs.

Any argument is limited to five minutes. California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Unless the court orders otherwise, the court does not provide court reporters for civil law and motion hearings and case management conferences at the court's expense. Any litigant who wants a record of a law and motion matter or a case management conference must arrange for the presence of a court reporter at his or her expense. Local Rule 10.00.3B.


Case No. CU13-079342, Block v. Isis Group, 1/23/2015 

Defendants Dole and Stillwaugh’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

The request for judicial notice is granted.

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843. In analyzing motions for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: (1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings to be addressed; (2) determine whether moving party showed facts justifying a judgment in movant's favor; and (3) determine whether the opposing
party demonstrated the existence of a triable, material issue of fact. Sun v. City of Oakland (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1182-83; McGarry v. Sax (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 983, 994; Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 289, 294.

In the present case, an untimely opposition was filed to the motion without any explanation for the delay. Such delay has resulted in the moving party being unable to file a reply. Nonetheless, in the interests of judicial economy, the court has read and considered the opposition.

Here, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to present a triable issue of material fact. First, the claims are barred by the three year statutes of limitations found in CCP §§338 and 359. The stock was allegedly diluted on 6/9/09 and the complaint was not filed until 1/28/13, past the three year statute.

Secondly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate damages. Plaintiff has failed to show that the shares were actually issued. Additionally, pursuant to the moving papers, in 2013 the Board rescinded the resolution authorizing the additional shares. Hence, the alleged actions did not occur. Moreover, during the entire relevant period, declarations in support of the motion show that the shares of Isis were worthless and Plaintiff never sought to sell them or exercise any shareholder rights that were blocked by the action to authorize additional shares. Plaintiff suffered no actionable damage as a result.

Next, the last three causes of action seek to enforce Plaintiff’s contractual rights against Isis for failure to pay loans allegedly made by Plaintiff to the corporation and for the corporation’s use of Plaintiff’s credit cards for Isis expenses. But, these allegations are focused on the corporation and its alleged breach of its obligations to Plaintiff. These moving defendants, as shareholders and /or directors, are not liable for the debt of the corporation. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate personal liability on the part of these shareholders and directors.

Therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

Moving party’s attorney is to submit a formal order that sets out verbatim the tentative ruling herein and complies with California Rule of Court 3.1312 and is thereafter to prepare, file and serve notice of order.

This is the Court’s tentative ruling. In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and thereafter notify the court’s law and motion secretary at (530) 265-1273 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. If you do not so notify the parties and court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling. Any argument is limited to five minutes. California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Unless the court orders otherwise, the court does not provide court reporters for civil law and motion hearings and case management conferences at the court's expense. Any litigant who wants a record of a law and motion matter or a case management conference must arrange for the presence of a court reporter at his or her expense. Local Rule 10.00.3B.


Case No. CU14-080722, Sorensen v. Shock, 1/23/2015 

Defendant’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is overruled in part and sustained with leave to amend in part.

As to the first cause of action, the demurrer is overruled. Plaintiff has alleged an oral contract whereby some terms were memorialized in the “non-binding term sheet” and all material terms have been set forth, including the date of the agreement, the date escrow was to be closed, and the purchase price, in paragraph 7 of the First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, this claim has been sufficiently pled.

As to the second cause of action for fraud, the demurrer is likewise overruled. Paragraph 15 of the First Amended Complaint alleges what the purported misrepresentation was, when it occurred, whether that specific statement was oral or written, and who made the representations. The claim has been sufficiently pled.

As to the third cause of action for declaratory relief, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. The declaratory relief claim fails to ask the court for an adjudication of the rights and duties of the parties relating to the purported contract. However, the court finds that the claim is not duplicative, as a Plaintiff may plead in the alternative.

Any amended complaint must be served and filed by February 2, 2015.

Moving party’s attorney is to submit a formal order that sets out verbatim the tentative ruling herein and complies with California Rule of Court 3.1312 and is thereafter to prepare, file and serve notice of order.

This is the Court’s tentative ruling. In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and thereafter notify the court’s law and motion secretary at (530) 265-1273 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. If you do not so notify the parties and court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling. Any argument is limited to five minutes. California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Unless the court orders otherwise, the court does not provide court reporters for civil law and motion hearings and case management conferences at the court's expense. Any litigant who wants a record of a law and motion matter or a case management conference must arrange for the presence of a court reporter at his or her expense. Local Rule 10.00.3B.