Phillip R. Christman v. Arturo Curiel et al

Aslam Decl. at ¶ 20, Exh. I.) Moreover, OCJ fails to suggest, let alone persuade the Court that any additional discovery is necessitated by the asserted delay in bringing the instant motion.

Finally, OCJ correctly notes that prejudice can arise from a delay in proceeding to trial. (Magpali v. FFarmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.) However, no trial date has been set in the instant action.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED.

Phillip R. Christman v. Arturo Curiel et al 25CV001366

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion is GRANTED.

There remains no notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9 to the opposing party/ies. To the extent the moving party has not yet complied with that direction, the Court hereby renews that direction to the moving party. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

Water Audit California v. County of Napa et al 25CV002032

[1] DEMURRER TO PETITIONER’S SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE AND WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

JUDICIAL DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3E(2), Judge Smith discloses that her husband works for Hundred Acre Winery, a Napa County winery. She is unaware of any connection between Hundred Acre Winery and the instant litigation, and unaware of any impact from the instant action on her husband’s employer. She can be fair and impartial in this matter.

TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer is SUSTAINED. Petitioner is granted 10 Court days’ leave to file a further amended Petition; limited, however, to alleging facts: (1) entitling Petitioner to a writ of mandamus for acts or omissions of Respondent other than noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), if appropriate; (2) sufficient to state a claim for violation of the Public Trust Doctrine; and/or (3) sufficient to state a claim for violation of Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution.