Defendant's Petition to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Putative Class Claims, and Stay Proceedings
including a meaningful assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party's position in light of all available information. (Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424).
The parties shall file a joint status statement of not more than ten (10) pages not later than five (5) court days prior to the continued hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion. The joint status statement shall indicate which of Defendant's responses remain at issue.
Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED to July 16, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court for further good faith meet and confer on the disputed discovery.
CV-25-012491 - FRELIX, ANTONIO vs OAKLAND MOTOR CARS INC - Defendant's Petition to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Putative Class Claims, and Stay Proceedings - CONTINUED, by stipulation. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation of June 5, 2026, this matter is CONTINUED to July 16, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.
CV-26-001048 - LANDUCCI, STEPHEN vs ROWE, BENJAMIN - a) Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint - SUSTAINED, without leave to amend; b) Defendant's Motion to Strike Suit [CCP 425.16] - MOOT.
a) Request For Judicial Notice Defendant requests judicial notice of documents and proceedings from Stanislaus County case number PR-23-000109. Under Evidence Code section 452, the Court may take judicial notice of the existence and legal effect of court records but may not take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements or disputed factual findings contained therein.
Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: The request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence, filing, and legal effect of the documents, including the fact of settlement and dismissal with prejudice. The request is DENIED to the extent it seeks judicial notice of the truth of factual assertions or testimony contained in those materials.
Legal Standard
A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. The Court assumes the truth of all properly pleaded material facts, but not conclusions of law or fact. The Court also considers matters properly subject to judicial notice.
First Cause of Action-Breach of Contract The first cause of action fails to state a claim against Defendant and it is barred by the two-year statue of limitations period for oral agreements. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 339). The complaint alleges a contract between Plaintiff and his father, Leo Landucci. Defendant is not alleged to be a party to the contract. A breach of contract claim requires that the defendant be a party to the contract or otherwise bound by it. The complaint affirmatively demonstrates that Defendant was acting solely as the decedent's attorney. This cause of action also fails due to the Complaint's failure to allege that Defendant was a party to the agreement he is alleged to have breached. (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff's opposition does not meaningfully dispute this defect and instead seeks leave to amend to assert different causes of action. Additionally, the claim appears time-barred on the face of the pleadings. Plaintiff alleges a breach occurring in July 2021, yet this action was filed in 2026. The delayed discovery rule postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action. (Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Sols., Inc., (2013) 55 Cal. 4th 1185) The Complaint does not allege facts that would support the application of the delayed discovery rule such as the date of Plaintiff's discovery of the relevant facts supporting the cause of action for breach of contract.