Claim of Exemption
terms as may be proper.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) While this discretion will generally be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings, the court acts within its discretion to deny an amendment where there has been a long delay in seeking the amendment and allowing the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing side. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 488.)
Here, Live Nation has substantially complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.
JRM opposed Live Nation’s ex parte application seeking advancement of the hearing on the instant motion. Within that opposition, the JRM argued prejudice because of the trial date. (ROA 332.) However, in response to that argument, the Court continued the trial date to allow for additional discovery. (ROA 334.) JRM provides no further opposition.
Thus, the Motion is granted.
Live Nation shall electronically file the first amended cross- complaint within 10 days pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure.
Live Nation shall serve notice of this Order.
4. 2023-1332366 Plaintiffs Adorn Premiums, LLC’s and Joshua Ivey’s motion to Adorn continue the trial date is denied as moot. Premiums LLC vs. J Style On 4/6/26, the Court continued trial on its own motion to Tuesday, Premiums, February 16, 2027. LCC Court orders clerk to give notice.
5. 2024-1417627 Judgment debtor Shelley Hawkins’ Claim of Exemption is granted. Sullivan vs. Hawkins Judgment Debtor claims the funds levied from her Schools First Federal Credit Union accounts are exempt. The Court has considered the Claim of Exemption, which was made under penalty of perjury, the supporting documents, and the Notice of Opposition to Claim of Exemption, and determines the claim of exemption should be granted in its entirety. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 704.190
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?”
The Court hereby orders the levying officer to return the levied property within 20 business days of receipt of notice of the order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (d)(4).)
The Clerk shall promptly transmit a certified copy of this order to the levying officer (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (e)) and give notice of the ruling.
6. 2025-1524146 Defendant Orange County Transportation Authority’s (“OCTA”) Salgado vs. demurrer to Plaintiff Jose Salgado’s First Amended Complaint is Orange County sustained with 15 days leave to amend. Transportation Authority Defendant’s special demurrer is overruled. The First Amended (OCTA) Complaint is not so confusing that Defendant cannot determine how to respond. (See Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139.)
A demurrer presents an issue of law regarding the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in the complaint. (Lambert v. Carneghi (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1126.) The challenge is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) or from matters outside the pleading which are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code §§ 451 or 452. Although California courts take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints, it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defendant of what plaintiff is complaining, and what remedies are being sought. (Leek v.
Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 413.) On demurrer, a complaint must be liberally construed. (CCP § 452; Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) All material facts properly pleaded, and reasonable inferences, must be accepted as true. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-67.)
1st cause of action for motor vehicle negligence
The Government Tort Claims Act provides that public entities are not liable for an injury except as otherwise provided by statute. (Gov’t Code § 815(a); see also Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1183 (‘‘direct tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care, and not on the general tort provisions of Civil Code section 1714,” which provides for liability based on willful or negligent acts.).)
This cause of action is not based on any statute. While Plaintiff cites to Vehicle Code § 17001 in his opposition, this is not identified in the First Amended Complaint as a basis for liability.
2nd cause of action for Gov’t Code, § 815.2 liability