Demurrer
cannot be asserted against a public entity. (See Lachtman v. Regents of University of California (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 187, 207 [“Public employment in the State of California is held by statute, not by contract...A California public employee, whether civil service or not, cannot state a cause of action for breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising out of the public employment relationship.”])
The court continues the 6/8/26 CMC to 10/12/26 at 8:45am.
Defendant shall give notice.
312 Shorty vs. Vets The Demurrer filed on 2/17/26 by Defendant Mercy Move Junk, LLC House CHDO, INC. (Mercy), as to the Complaint filed on 12/12/25 by Plaintiff Taj Shorty (Plaintiff) is SUSTAINED with leave to file a first amended complaint by 6/29/26.
The allegations in the Complaint, as to Mercy, fall squarely within the scope of the Privette doctrine. When a person or organization hires an independent contractor, the hirer presumptively delegates to the contractor the responsibility to do the work safely. (Sandoval v. Qualcomm Incorporated (2021) 12 Cal.5th 256, 269.) This is so even where workers’ compensation is not available. (Id. at 270–271.)
The doctrine has two primary exceptions: where the hirer retains control over any part of the independent contractor's work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury, or knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered, and failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. (Ramirez v. PK I
Plaza 580 SC LP (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 252, 262– 264.)
Plaintiff here seeks to assert that the latter “concealed hazard” exception but has failed to allege facts to show how that could be so.
Mercy shall give notice.
314 Vincent vs. Ryan Pourtemour’s motion to vacate the stipulation Pourtemour and order discharging Bridgepointe Technologies, Inc. is DENIED.
Pourtemour seeks to vacate the May 4, 2022 Order which was entered based upon the stipulation of the parties. (ROA 164.) The motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(d) and 386. (Motion at 3:5-6.)
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?”
Pourtemour seeks to vacate the stipulation and order entered May 4, 2022 “to the extent it discharged and dismissed Bridgepointe Technologies, Inc. (Bridgepointe) as interpleader plaintiff from this action.” (Motion at 2: 7-9)
Code of Civil Procedure 473(d) states, “The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.”
Pourtemour argues the order is void because based on extrinsic fraud. Based on the Court’s review of the evidence and briefs submitted by the parties, as well as the Court’s file in this matter, the Court does not find evidence of fraud to warrant vacating the May 4, 2022 Order under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d). Also, to the extent the motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil