CARLOS, JUAN vs TEEPLES PLUMBING & DRILLING INC

hearing to further address the issues herein.

CV-26-001432 - CARLOS, JUAN vs TEEPLES PLUMBING & DRILLING INC - Defendant Teeples Plumbing & Drilling, Inc's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. The Court exercises its discretion to decline to consider Plaintiff's untimely opposition herein. Based on its review of the moving papers, the Court finds that the demurrer should be sustained in its entirety. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.10(e).)

The allegations fail to plead statutory liability with the requisite specificity, particularly as to the elements of Defendant's knowledge and intent, Meta's underlying violation(s), and/or Plaintiff's cognizable damages, where applicable. Moreover, the Court notes the absence of any binding California law applying the provisions of Penal Code Sec.Sec. 631(a) or 638.51 to instances of internet-based activities such as those alleged herein. Therefore, the Court harbors significant doubts about Plaintiff's ability to plead a viable claim under those statutes. Nevertheless, the Court will grant leave to amend in this instance. Plaintiff shall submit his Second Amended Complaint within 20 days.

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

CV-23-001643 - EDVALSON, ERIC, III VS CITY OF MODESTO - Defendant City of Modesto's Motion for Summary Judgment - DENIED. As a preliminary matter Plaintiff's timing concerns regarding the original hearing date of this motion have been addressed by the continuance of the motion. Additionally, Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's Amended Separate Statement are overruled. While the court did not expressly grant Plaintiff leave to file a supplementary separate statement since the court granted Plaintiff leave to conduct the PMK deposition for purposes of being able to mount his defense to the Motion for Summary Judgment and given the importance of a separate statement as far as the Motion for Summary Judgment is concerned, it would be reasonably anticipated that Plaintiff would use the information obtained from said deposition including by the filing of an Amended Separate Statement.

Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is granted, limited to the existence of the requested Exhibits. Evidence Code Sec.452. Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code Sec.Sec. 452 and 453.

After a review of all the testimony and evidence adduced, the Court finds that triable issues of material fact exist as to the applicable Statute of Limitations to Plaintiff's claims. The May 12, 2022, correspondence lists only "City of Modesto Risk Management Division," lacks an individual signature, and was served with a proof of service signed by a third-party employee in Bakersfield; raising a triable issue as to whether this constitutes written notice "of action taken" given "in the manner prescribed by Government Code Sec. 915.4" from an authorized source. This is a triable issue impacting the Government Code Sec. 913 predicate compliance. (Defendant's UMFs 1-9, Defendant's Exhibit 2, Plaintiff's Amended Additional UMFs 10-31, Plaintiff's Exhibit C, Braley Deposition pp. 5-6, 8-9,12-17,19, 20-22 and 24-25).