Anderson vs. Bohm Wildish & Matsen, LLP

Decl., ¶ 2.) The court’s records also confirm since this motion was filed the parties appear actively engaged in discovery. The parties filed Joint Letter Briefs, attended informal discovery conferences, and withdrew pending discovery motions after Plaintiff served discovery responses. (See ROA 936, 938, 940, 942, 952, 961, 962.) Under these circumstances, dismissal does not appear warranted.

Muscarella also failed to show that the delay in taking Plaintiff’s deposition was caused solely by Plaintiff’s dilatory conduct. Muscarella simply asserts he could not take the deposition until the pleadings were in order. But no evidence is offered as to any attempts Muscarella made to take Plaintiff’s deposition at an earlier date or showing Plaintiff refused to sit for his deposition at an earlier time. Moreover, Plaintiff filed his operative SAC in December 2024. The pleadings have thus been in order for the past 18 months. Muscarella did not file a reply for this motion and thus offered no argument to refute Plaintiff’s assertion that the case has been actively litigated. For the same reasons, Muscarella failed to support his alternative request for a trial continuance.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

302 Anderson vs. Before the court is a demurrer filed by defendants Bohm Wildish & Bohm, Wildish & Matsen, LLP, and Jennifer Matsen, LLP Wilson (Defendants together) to plaintiff Gary Anderson’s (Plaintiff) First Amended Complaint (FAC). The demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as described below.

Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by 9/11/26.

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to cause of action number one. (Code of Civil

Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e).) An attorney only has a professional duty as to its client. (Gordon v. Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP (2023) 88 Cal. App. 5th 543, 554.) Although a probate attorney may owe a duty to intended beneficiaries of the document prepared by the attorney, id., at 554-56, Plaintiff has specifically alleged he was not an intended beneficiary under that trust. As such, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support this cause of action.

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to cause of action number two. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Again, Plaintiff has not alleged any fiduciary relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants or the ability of Plaintiff to bring a lawsuit against Defendants on behalf of decedent or the estate.

The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to cause of action number three. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (f).) There is no cause of action for ‘willful misconduct and reckless disregard of professional duty.’ To the extent this cause of action is an attempt at professional negligence, the same analysis under cause of action number one applies. To the extent this is a request for punitive damages, punitive damages are a remedy and not a COA. (McLaughlin v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 1132, 1163.)

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to cause of action number three. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (f).) Again, Plaintiff has not alleged any fiduciary relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants, the ability of Plaintiff to bring a lawsuit against Defendants on behalf of decedent or the estate, or a duty owed by Defendants to Plaintiff.

The 8/24/26 CMC is continued to 12/7/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.

Defendants shall give notice.

304 Cardenas vs. The motion of specially appearing defendant Index Vasken Tatarian, individually and as Trustee of the Architecture and 2021 Sarkis Tatarian Revocable Trust (Vasken), to Designing quash service of summons by publication is L.L.C. GRANTED as set forth below.

Vasken’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence of and legal effects of the records, but not as to the truth of any disputed facts asserted therein. (Evid. Code § 452(d); Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264.)

Vasken’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.

As an initial matter, the argument of plaintiff Cayetano Cardenas, an individual doing business as CR Steel Fabricators & Erectors Co (Plaintiff), that the notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (b), is not well-taken. In the reply, Vasken confirmed the August 24, 2026 hearing date was the date provided to him by the court’s own motion hearing reservation system. (Tatarian Reply Decl., ¶ 2; Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. A.)

As to the merits, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 415.50, subdivision (b), the court’s December 11, 2025 order for publication required a copy of the summons and complaint to be mailed to Vasken if his address was ascertained before expiration of the time prescribed for publication. (See ROA 119.) The application for publication confirms Vasken’s address was known to Plaintiff before expiration of the time prescribed for publication and indeed prior to the application