BLACK, DAWN vs ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF PHOENIX LLC

With regard to the Eleventh Cause of Action for Gross Negligence, the Court finds that California law does not support an independent cause of action for gross negligence, which differs from ordinary negligence in degree, not in kind. (Epochal Enterprises, Inc. v. LF Encinitas Properties, LLC (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 44, 55-56.) As the pleading already asserts a cause of action for negligence, this claim is duplicative and unnecessary; therefore, the demurrer to the Eleventh Cause of Action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

With regard to the Sixteenth Cause of Action for Aiding and Abetting, the Court finds that the factual allegations do not state facts supporting a conscious decision by the moving defendant to participate in and render substantial assistance to Dr. Altman's alleged tortious activity. (See, e.g., George v. eBay, Inc. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 620, 641-642; Austin B. v. Escondido Union School Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 879.) Therefore, the demurrer to this claim is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

The Court finds that the remaining challenged claims are sufficiently alleged at this stage of the case. Therefore, the demurrer to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth Causes of Action is OVERRULED. Plaintiffs shall submit their Second Amended Complaint within 20 days. b) The motion to strike is MOOT in view of the Court's ruling on the demurrer, above. CV-26-002449 - BLACK, DAWN vs ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF PHOENIX LLC - Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of San Francisco, LLC's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - OVERRULED.

The Court finds that the pleading sufficiently states the subject causes of action at this stage of the litigation. Moreover, it appears that the demurrer rests, in part, on the existence of extrinsic facts, which are inappropriate for consideration on demurrer. The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24: CV-21-001167 - ELIZONDO, AARON vs KCB VENTURES INC - Defendant, Tejinderpaul Chahal's, Motion for an Order That Requests for Admissions, Set One, to Defendant, ADCOMM, Inc., Be Deemed Admitted - DENIED.

Request for Judicial Notice Defendant Tejinderpaul Chahal's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the court records identified in the request, including Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Chahal's prior Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, the Court's order granting that motion, and the Notice of Ruling. Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). Merits Defendant Tejinderpaul Chahal's Motion for an Order Deeming Requests for Admission, Set One, to Defendant Adcomm, Inc.

Admitted is DENIED. The motion is procedurally defective. Chahal's own moving papers establish that Adcomm served responses to the requests for admission on October 29, 2025. Although those responses allegedly consisted solely of objections and no substantive responses, Chahal acknowledged the existence of those responses by filing a motion to compel further responses, which the Court granted on April 7, 2026. Because responses were served, this is not a circumstance in which the responding party wholly failed to respond to requests for admission.

Nonetheless, the present motion improperly proceeds as if no responses were ever received. As the premise for the motion is procedurally infirm, the Court declines to deem Requests for Admission Nos. 1 through 51 admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280. The denial is without prejudice to any relief that may otherwise be available under the Discovery Act based upon an alleged failure to comply with the Court's prior order compelling further responses. The Court expresses no opinion regarding the merits of any such request.

CV-24-000417 - CEJA, REGINA vs STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION - Final Fairness Hearing -