HEARING ON NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION - CLAIM AND DELIVERY BY STELLANTIS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME DOE VS PALM SPRINGS MOTION TO STRIKE 1ST AMENDED CVPS2503169 UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT OF JOHN DOE BY PALM DISTRICT SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Tentative Ruling: Hearing continued to July 28, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department PS2.
Plaintiff John Doe, a five-year-old minor, by his mother and natural guardian Angelica Melgar, sued the Palm Springs Unified School District (“District”) and Agua Caliente Elementary for alleged sexual assault by another student. On April 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Complaint, alleging the following four causes of action against the District and Agua Caliente Elementary: 1st cause of action (negligent hiring, supervision, and retention); 2nd cause of action (negligent failure to educate, train, or warn); 3rd cause of action (vicarious liability); and 4th cause of action (Civil Code, §§ 51, 52).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, during class, a school teacher let him use the single stall classroom bathroom. (Complaint, ¶ 15.) Plaintiff further alleges that, while he was in the restroom, the teacher heard Plaintiff’s call for help and found another student in the restroom with Plaintiff’s pants pulled down. (Complaint, ¶ 16.) Based on these alleged facts, Plaintiff asserts that the District failed its duty to adequately hire, supervise, and retain the school personnel that left Plaintiff alone to be assaulted. Plaintiff also asserts that the District failed in its duty to educate, train, supervise, notify, and warn parents and the agents of the District and the school regarding prevention, detection, and reporting of child abuse. Based on such failure of duties, Plaintiff asserts that the District violated his rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51(b).)
Defendant District now demurs to the Complaint to all causes of action on the ground the District cannot be directly liable for Plaintiff’s injuries based on its breach of any mandatory duty found under statute.
Demurrer
Defendant did not satisfy its obligation to meet and confer in accordance with CCP §§ 430.41
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, the Declaration of defense counsel(s) indicates that on April 3, 2026, counsel wrote to plaintiffs counsel detailing their position on pleading errors subject to a demurrer and motion to strike and requesting that the parties meet and confer. (Declaration, ¶4.) No response from Plaintiff.
Defendant and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to meet and confer by telephone, video conference or in person for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections raised in the demurrer and motion to strike. As part of the meet and confer process, Defendant shall identify with legal support the basis of the alleged deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is legally sufficient or, in the alternative, how the First Amended Complaint may be amended to cure any legal insufficiency.
After meeting and conferring, Defendant shall 10 days before the continued hearing date set forth above do one of the following:
(1) vacate the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike and file an answer to the First Amended Complaint;
(2) file with the court a declaration stating that the parties have agreed that Plaintiffs will file a Second Amended Complaint before the date set forth above; or
(3) file with the court a declaration stating the means by which the parties met and conferred and identifying the specific objections in the demurrer and motion to strike that the parties were unable to resolve.
The court will not accept further briefing.
5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ON 1ST F.J. ZAM COMPANY, INC AMENDED COMPLAINT OF F.J. ZAM CVPS2503660 VS R.D. OLSON COMPANY, INC., BY R.D. OLSON CONSTRUCTION, INC CONSTRUCTION, INC. Tentative Ruling: Granted.
Instant matter is consolidated with CVPS2301220 as the lead case number. Consequently, the instant matter will be stayed under the lead case number with a Status Hearing currently set for September 22, 2026.
Defendant R.D. Olson moves to consolidate the instant matter with related case CVPS2301220.
Plaintiff opposes.
The court must consolidate the instant matter as it is one of many related lawsuits arising from a common set of facts involving a construction project in the City of La Quinta.
Moving party to provide notice pursuant to CCP 1019.5.
6. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME HEARING ON NOTICE OF APPLICATION STELLANTIS FINANCIAL FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION - CLAIM AND CVPS2601659 SERVICES, INC VS DELIVERY BY STELLANTIS FINANCIAL ATTANASSOVA SERVICES, INC. Tentative Ruling: Hearing taken off calendar by moving party on June 5, 2026.