Judge: Robert P. Dahlquist, Case: 37-2022-00040800-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 23, 2024

02/23/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-29 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert P Dahlquist

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00040800-CU-BC-NC HERNANDEZ VS. ERMEL [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Order to Stay Proceedings, 01/25/2024

Cross-defendant Martial Etame's motion to dismiss (ROA # 47) is denied without prejudice to Mr. Etame raising these same arguments and defenses by way of other motions and/or at trial.

In connection with a prior motion, the court issued a ruling stating, in part: 'It appears that cross-defendant Martial Etame may be correct in asserting that Wolfram Ermel's cross-complaint is barred because (1) the cross-complaint is seeking to re-litigate claims that have already been adjudicated to a final judgment by the Los Angeles Superior Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, and/or (2) it asserts claims that are not cognizable because Martial Etame's actions in obtaining a judgment against Wolfram Ermel in the Los Angeles Superior Court are privileged. But the court has not been provided with a sufficient record (matters that are subject to judicial notice and/or evidence' to adjudge these issues in connection with these motions.' (ROA # 45) The same analysis applies here. The current motion to dismiss is not supported by an evidentiary record and/or request for judicial notice establishing the matters stated in Mr. Etame's brief. Mr. Etame's unsworn statements in his brief are not evidence. Similarly, the unsworn statements of Attorney Mubasher in his briefs are not evidence.

Cross-defendant Etame's motion for coordination of related cases or a stay (ROA # 68) is denied. To the extent that the motion seeks to transfer this case to the Los Angeles Superior Court because there is an earlier-filed case in that court, the request should be directed to the judge assigned to the earlier filed case. In addition, this current case was filed by a plaintiff (Maria Hernandez) seeking relief with respect to real property located in San Diego County. The court is not persuaded that Ms. Hernandez's claim should be transferred to the Los Angeles Superior Court. The court is not persuaded, on this limited record, that any other relief requested by Mr. Etame in this current motion should be granted.

This minute order constitutes the court's order. No party is required to submit a proposed order after hearing.

This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing (in person or remote) at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, February 23, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of February 23, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3074307 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HERNANDEZ VS. ERMEL [IMAGED]  37-2022-00040800-CU-BC-NC Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3074307