Civil & Probate

-ADR
  ADR Forms
  ADR FAQ's


-Case Management
  Mediation Panel
  Case Management Forms

-Probate
  Probate FAQ's

-Tentative Rulings




Tentative Rulings, Truckee - Law and Motion

>Pivotal Resources v. Murphy Case No. TCU15-6158
>Bernards v. Tahoe Truckee Unified School District Case No. TCU14-5829
>Li v. Georgiou Case No. NCU14-0001

Pivotal Resources v. Murphy Case No. TCU15-6158 

Plaintiff’s OSC re Preliminary Injunction is continued on the court’s own motion to September 14, 2015, at 1:30 pm in Dept. A.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. However, the court’s file contains a Response to Injunction filed by Defendant in pro per on August 14, 2015. However, there is no proof of service of this pleading.

Therefore, Defendant shall serve Plaintiff with a copy of the Response by August 31, 2015. Plaintiff may file a reply by September 7, 2015.

The TRO issued on August 3, 2015 shall remain in full force and effect pending further order of the court.

Plaintiff’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) 582-7835 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.


Bernards v. Tahoe Truckee Unified School District Case No. TCU14-5829 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas is granted in part.

The court determines that there is potentially some relevancy of the medical records as to decedent’s life expectancy. But, courts must carefully balance a right of privacy against the interest in having just litigation. Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 371; Valley Bank of Nevada v. Sup. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 657; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2012) ¶¶8:320 - 8:325.1.

Absent showings of direct relevance, compelling need, and unavailability of alternative sources, a trial court only could find that a privacy interest prevails. Ombudsman Services of No. Cal. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1251.

Here, Defendants have demonstrated that there are no alternative sources. Defendants have requested other medical records which have purportedly been destroyed. Defendants have queried various individuals who did not have the dentist’s name who removed decedent’s teeth.

There also appears to be some relevance and need for the medical records as they relate to life expectancy.

However, the subpoenas as currently written are overbroad. The court limits the subpoenas to “any medical records relating to the extracting of Sasha Bernards’ teeth.” No other medical records or billing records shall be subpoenaed.

Plaintiff’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) 582-7835 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.


Li v. Georgiou Case No. NCU14-0001 

Defendants PTS Travel and ACPS Global’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

Standard of Review

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.

Objections to Evidence

Plaintiffs Objections to Evidence are sustained as to 1, 2 (hearsay). The remaining objections are overruled.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice of the First Amended Complaint is granted.

Analysis

By this motion, Defendants contend that driver Feng was an employee or acting as an agent for Defendant ACPS or PTS Travel.

“An agent is one who represents another, called the principal, in dealings with third persons.” Civil Code 2295. Whether an agency relationship exists is a question of fact. Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 193, 214.

The court finds a triable issue of material fact as to whether or not Feng was an agent of Defendants. See Plaintiffs’ Response SSUMF No. 17. Mr. Feng was performing a service for Luo, the President of Defendant corporations, in a capacity that the business often performs. Mr. Feng has a class B license, permitting him to transport passengers. Mr. Feng also contacted Mr. Luo on the day of the accident to advise him of the accident in question. Further, while Mr. Feng testified that he was not employed, Mr. Luo’s deposition stated that “It was Mr. Feng’s day off that day, so he said he could do it.” 18:21-22. Thus, there are triable issues as to whether Mr. Feng was simply doing a favor for a friend, or whether he was instructed as an agent for the company to transport decedent.

Defendants also argue that they committed no negligent acts that could be imputed to ACPS or PTS Travel. However, ACPS is a common carrier and owes a heightened duty of care. Civil Code section 2100. Although ACPS contends it was not acting in a business capacity in arranging the transport of decedent, as set forth above, there are triable issues as to whether or not Mr. Feng was acting as an agent for ACPS at the time of the accident.

Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing, the court finds a triable issue of material fact and the motion for summary judgment is denied.

Plaintiff’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) 582-7835 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.