CHAVEZ, KARINA vs CHAVEZ, RAMIRO

request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-25-011430 - CHAVEZ, KARINA vs CHAVEZ, RAMIRO - Defendants Ramiro Chavez et al.'s Demurrer to Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. Based on the arguments set forth in the moving papers, the Court finds that the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the claims suggested therein. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.10(e).) In addition, the Court finds that much of the pleading is unintelligible as to the facts and theories alleged, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Ca. Rules of Ct., rule 2.112 in that regard, rendering the Complaint uncertain. (Code Civ.

Proc. Sec. 430.10(f).) The Court further notes that Plaintiff's untimely opposition fails to substantively address the defendants' legal arguments herein. Lastly, the Court notes that a substantial portion of Plaintiff's Complaint appears to arise from matters that have been addressed in a pre-existing family law action (#FL21-2757), raising serious questions about this Court's jurisdiction to address such claims. Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED in its entirety. Plaintiff shall submit her amended pleading within 20 days.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:

CV-22-005038 - COUNTY OF STANISLAUS vs SHAIBI, YEHIA AHMED QASSEM - a) Plaintiff County of Stanislaus's Motion Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1260.040 for Determination of Legal Issues Regarding Defendant Lion's Market's Entitlement to Claim Loss of Business Goodwill - GRANTED. b) Plaintiff's Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Lion's Market and/or its Counsel - a) GRANTED.

A business owner is entitled to a jury trial on the amount of goodwill lost by a taking only if he or she first establishes, as a threshold matter, that the business had goodwill to lose. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Dry Canyon Enterprises, LLC (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 486, 491; City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Coyne (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1515, 1522-1523. Whether the qualifying conditions for compensation for loss of goodwill in eminent domain proceedings have been met is a matter for the trial court to resolve, and only if the court finds these conditions exist does the remaining issue of the value of the goodwill loss, if any, go to the jury.

City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Coyne, supra; City of Perris v. Stamper (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 576, 594-595. Code of Civil Procedure section 1260.040 authorizes determination of legal and evidentiary issues affecting compensation before trial, including goodwill entitlement issues. Weiss v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 856, 862 fn.

6.

The Court finds that Defendant Lion's Market has failed to establish entitlement to compensation for loss of business goodwill under Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510. Plaintiff's motion is accordingly granted. Defendant is precluded from asserting or presenting evidence in support of a claim for loss of business goodwill in this action. Code of Civ. Proc. Sec. 1258.280.

b) GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Terminating sanctions may be imposed for misuse of the discovery process, including failure to respond to discovery and disobedience of court orders. CCP Sec.Sec. 2023.010 (d) and (g) & 2023.030. Lion's Market is guilty of violating both sections and therefore prima facie, the court may impose terminating sanctions. However, discovery sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being the last resort. Terminating sanctions for discovery abuses are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application.”Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal App 5th 154,