This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/27/2020 at 04:25:49 (UTC).

CITY OF DOWNEY VS MARTIN COLIN

Case Summary

On 06/07/2018 CITY OF DOWNEY filed an Other lawsuit against MARTIN COLIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7201

  • Filing Date:

    06/07/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

CITY OF DOWNEY A CHARTER CITY

HARTWICK COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGIES INC A

COLIN MARTIN

HARTWICK PETER

HARTWICK ANDREA

MANIACI ROBERT P.

VASQUEZ FERNANDO INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A MAYOR MAYOR PRO TEM AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER OF CITY OF DOWNEY

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

MANIACI ROBERT P. AN INDIVIDUAL

HARTWICK COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGIES INC A

COLIN MARTIN AN INDIVIDUAL

HARTWICK ANDREA AN INDIVIDUAL

HARTWICK PETER AN INDIVIDUAL

COLIN MARTIN

HARTWICK PETER

HARTWICK ANDREA

MANIACI ROBERT

MANIACI ROBERT P.

MANIACI ROBERT P. ALIAS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT P. MANIACI AND MARY M. MANIACI FAMILY TRUST

MANIACI MARY M. ALIAS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT P. MANIACI AND MARY M. MANIACI FAMILY TRUST

MANIACI ROBERT P. ALIAS

MANIACI MARY M. ALIAS

Not Classified By Court

MARY M. MANIACI AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT P. AND MARY M. MANIACI FAMILY TRUST

ROBERT P. MANIACI AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT P. AND MARY M. MANIACI FAMILY TRUST

3 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK

LITVAK WILLIAM

MARKUS ERIC PHILIP

CASTILLO CAROLINE KARABIAN

MARKUS ERIC

Cross Defendant, Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Not Classified By Court Attorneys

WILLIAMSON AIRENE

BARTLETT ROBERT A

FEILD SKIP ALLEN

BARTLETT ROBERT ARTHUR

BARTLETT ROBERT ARTHUR ESQ.

WHITMER-CABRERA BRYAN

WHELAN JOHN MICHAEL

STRANGE GORDON CHESTER

Plaintiff, Cross Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Not Classified By Court Attorneys

MARKUS ERIC

WILLIAMSON AIRENE

BARTLETT ROBERT A

BERRY LEAH

FEILD SKIP ALLEN

BARTLETT ROBERT ARTHUR

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF CITY OF DOWNEY'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANT ROBERT MANIACI

9/8/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF CITY OF DOWNEY'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANT ROBERT MANIACI

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER)

8/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/06/2020

4/6/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/06/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REGARDING A...)

3/25/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REGARDING A...)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Appointment of Receiver;...)

1/29/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Appointment of Receiver;...)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF SKIP FEILD, ESQ. REGARDING ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY (SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES)

12/3/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF SKIP FEILD, ESQ. REGARDING ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY (SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MARTIN COLIN IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING DISCOVERY AND CONTINUING PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE THE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF MARTIN

12/3/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MARTIN COLIN IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING DISCOVERY AND CONTINUING PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE THE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF MARTIN

Status Report - STATUS REPORT RE: ABATEMENT OF UNLAWFUL CONDITIONS AT SUBJECT PROPERTY

10/25/2019: Status Report - STATUS REPORT RE: ABATEMENT OF UNLAWFUL CONDITIONS AT SUBJECT PROPERTY

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ROBERT P. MANIACI IN FURTHER OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER

10/16/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ROBERT P. MANIACI IN FURTHER OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER)

8/15/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPOINT RECEIVER

8/8/2019: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPOINT RECEIVER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REGARDING ANSWER/RESPONSIVE PLEADING ...)

7/29/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REGARDING ANSWER/RESPONSIVE PLEADING ...)

Answer

5/10/2019: Answer

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MIKE LARNARD

5/6/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MIKE LARNARD

Request for Judicial Notice

5/6/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Answer

4/24/2019: Answer

Case Management Statement - Case Management Statement submitted by Robert P. Maniaci and served to Martin Colon

12/11/2018: Case Management Statement - Case Management Statement submitted by Robert P. Maniaci and served to Martin Colon

286 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/15/2021
  • Hearing07/15/2021 at 13:30 PM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Hearing12/10/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Order to Show Cause Re: regarding answer/responsive pleading to all the operative pleadings-verification all the operative pleadings are at issue

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Hearing12/10/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Hearing12/10/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Hearing12/10/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Hearing12/10/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Hearing12/10/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • Hearing11/19/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Motion - Other for Appointment of Receiver

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • DocketBrief (Plaintiff City of Downey's Bench Brief Re: Successful Demurrer Does Not Render Pending Anti-Slapp Motion Moot); Filed by CITY OF DOWNEY a charter city (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
389 More Docket Entries
  • 07/27/2018
  • DocketSummons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • DocketSummons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by CITY OF DOWNEY a charter city (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by CITY OF DOWNEY a charter city (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by CITY OF DOWNEY a charter city (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by CITY OF DOWNEY a charter city (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by CITY OF DOWNEY a charter city (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC067201    Hearing Date: September 10, 2020    Dept: C

CITY OF DOWNEY vs. MARTIN COLIN, et al.

CASE NO.: VC067201 

HEARING:  9/10/20

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#10

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendants/Cross-Complainants/Cross-Defendants Martin Colin and Robert P. Maniaci’s motions to conduct specified discovery notwithstanding CCP § 425.16 are GRANTED.

II. Plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motions against Defendants Martin Colin and Robert P. Maniaci’s cross-complaints are TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.

III. Plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motions against Defendants Martin Colin and Robert P. Maniaci’s FAXCs are CONTINUED to Thursday, December 10, 2020, at 9:30 a.m.

IV. Plaintiff’s demurrers to Defendants Martin Colin and Robert P. Maniaci’s FAXCs are CONTINUED to Thursday, December 10, 2020, at 9:30 a.m.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendants/Cross-Complainants/Cross-Defendants Martin Colin and Robert P. Maniaci (“Defendants”) move the Court for an order to allow specified discovery notwithstanding CCP § 425.16 and to continue Plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motions pursuant to CCP §§ 425.16(g) and 425.18(e), respectively.

Procedural History

On June 7, 2018, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant City of Downey (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants for public nuisance, municipal code violations, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

On May 10, 2019, Defendants each filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff.

On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed two anti-SLAPP motions against each Defendants’ cross-complaint.

On November 26, 2019, the Court sustained Plaintiff’s demurrers to each Defendants’ cross-complaint with 20 days leave to amend.

On December 3, 2019, Defendants each filed an ex parte application for an order that specified discovery may be conducted notwithstanding CCP § 425.16 and continuing Plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motions.

On December 6, 2019, the Court ordered the ex parte applications to be heard by way of motion.

On December 12, 2019, Defendants each filed an operative First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FAXC”) against Plaintiff.

On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the instant motions.

On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed two anti-SLAPP motions against each Defendants’ FAXC.

On April 28, 2020, due to the spread of COVID-19, the Court continued the instant motions to September 10, 2020.

Merits

CCP § 425.18(e) states, “A party opposing a special motion to strike a SLAPPback may file an ex parte application for a continuance to obtain necessary discovery.”

As an initial matter, the Court notes that CCP § 425.18 is inapplicable here because the anti-SLAPP motions have not yet been resolved, and no SLAPPback action was filed. Thus, Defendants’ requests to continue Plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motions pursuant to CCP § 425.18(e) are denied. However, on the Court’s own motion, Plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motions against Defendants’ cross-complaints and FAXCs are taken off calendar and continued, respectively, as set forth below.

Pursuant to CCP § 425.16(g), all discovery proceedings are stayed upon filing of a notice of an anti-SLAPP motion, unless, on noticed motion and for good cause shown, the Court orders specified discovery be conducted. “The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion.” (CCP § 425.16(g).)

Good cause to conduct discovery exists “[i]f…[Defendants] makes a timely and proper showing in response to the motion to strike, that a [Plaintiff] or witness possesses evidence needed by [Defendants] to establish a prima facie case, the [Defendants] must be given the reasonable opportunity to obtain that evidence through discovery before the motion to strike is adjudicated.” (Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 868.) “The trial court, therefore, must liberally exercise its discretion by authorizing reasonable and specified discovery timely petitioned for by…[Defendants] in a case such as this, when evidence to establish a prima facie case is reasonably shown to be held, or known, by [Plaintiff] or its agents and employees.” (Id.)  

The fact that the evidence necessary to establish the Defendants’ prima facie case is in the hands of the Plaintiff or third party is only one factor. (The Garment Workers Center v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1161.) “The trial court should consider whether the information the [Defendants] seek[] to obtain through formal discovery proceedings is readily available from other sources or can be obtained through informal discovery.” (Lafayette, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at 868.) “The court should also consider the [Defendants’] need for discovery in the context of the issues raised in the SLAPP motion.” (Id.)  

Here, on July 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed its first two anti-SLAPP motions against Defendants’ cross-complaints; thus, all discovery proceedings are stayed. (CCP § 425.16(g).) Discovery continues to be stayed notwithstanding Defendants’ subsequent FAXCs because no rulings have been made on the first two anti-SLAPP motions. (Id.; see also Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1055-1056.) Moreover, on February 18, 2020, Plaintiffs filed another two anti-SLAPP motions against Defendants’ FAXCs.

Defendant Martin Colin seeks to have four specified discovery allowed: (1) Request for Admissions, Set One; (2) Request for Production of Documents, Set One; (3) Form Interrogatories, Set One; and (4) Special Interrogatories, Set One.

Defendant Robert P. Maniaci seeks to have six specified discoveries allowed: (1) deposition of Plaintiff’s City Manager Gilbert A. Livas; (2) deposition of Cross-Defendant Fernando Vasquez; (3) Request for Admissions, Set One; (4) Request for Production of Documents, Set One; (5) Special Interrogatories, Set One; and (6) Form Interrogatories, Set One.

The Court finds good cause to allow the specified discoveries. Specifically, the Court finds good cause exists because no discoveries have been conducted in the instant action. Therefore, Defendants have no evidence to satisfy their burden to show a prima facie case in their FAXCs. (Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 294, 307; Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821; Fleishman v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 350, 356.)

Accordingly, Defendants’ motions to conduct specified discovery notwithstanding CCP § 425.16 are GRANTED.

On the Court’s own motion, Plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motions against Defendants’ cross-complaints are TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.

On the Court’s own motion, Plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motions against Defendants’ FAXCs are continued to Thursday, December 10, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. Oppositions and replies are due per Code of Civil Procedures.

On the Court’s own motion, Plaintiff’s demurrers to Defendants’ FAXCs are continued to Thursday, December 10, 2020, at 9:30 a.m.

Case Number: VC067201    Hearing Date: August 18, 2020    Dept: C

CITY OF DOWNEY v. COLIN, et al.

CASE NO.:  VC067201

HEARING 8/18/20

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]

#14

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Mary Maniaci’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.

Moving party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Mary Maniaci in her capacity as a Trustee of the Robert P. and Mary M. Maniaci Family Trust moves to quash service of summons for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to CCP §§ 418.10 and 415.10.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Mary Maniaci in her capacity as Trustee of the Robert P. and Mary M. Maniaci Family Trust made a general appearance on 10/30/19 at the hearing for appointment of receiver.

"[A] general appearance occurs where a party, either directly or through counsel, participates in an action in some manner which recognizes the authority of the court to proceed. It does not require any formal or technical act." (Id., at 1756, citing Sanchez v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 16 1397.) "'If the defendant 'raises any other question, or asks for any relief which can only be granted upon the hypothesis that the court has jurisdiction of his person, his appearance is general'." (Id., quoting California Overseas Bank v. French American Banking Corp. (1984) 19 154 Cal.App.3d 179.)

Plaintiff has not submitted any transcript of the 10/30/19 proceedings, and the Minute Order only reflects that Skip A. Field appeared for “Defendants Colin and Maniaci.” It is unclear from the Minute Order whether the appearance was on behalf of Robert or Mary; and moreover, it is unclear if the appearance was on behalf of Mary Maniaci “in her capacity as Trustee.”

Unlike Robert Maniaci, who filed a Cross-Complaint in his capacity as Trustee, Mary Maniaci has not done so. Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Mary Maniaci in her capacity as Trustee has made a general appearance.

Case Number: VC067201    Hearing Date: July 21, 2020    Dept: SEC

CALENDAR #3CITY OF DOWNEY v. COLIN, et al.

CASE NO.: VC067201

HEARING: 7/21/20

[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]

Calendar#3

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Robert Maniaci’s motion to quash service of summons is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give NOTICE.

Defendant Maniaci moves to quash service of summons for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to CCP §§ 418.10 and 415.10.

"[A] general appearance occurs where a party, either directly or through counsel, participates in an action in some manner which recognizes the authority of the court to proceed. It does not require any formal or technical act." (Id., at 1756, citing Sanchez v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 16 1397.) "'If the defendant 'raises any other question, or asks for any relief which can only be granted upon the hypothesis that the court has jurisdiction of his person, his appearance is general'." (Id., quoting California Overseas Bank v. French American Banking Corp. (1984) 19 154 Cal.App.3d 179.)

Robert Maniaci made a general appearance in this action when he filed his Cross-Complaint on 5/10/19, a First Amended Cross-Complaint on 12/16/19, and an Answer to the Hartwick’s First Amended Cross-Complaint.

Therefore, this court has jurisdiction over Maniaci pursuant to CCP § 410.50(a).

Motion is DENIED.

Case Number: VC067201    Hearing Date: December 26, 2019    Dept: SEC

CITY OF DOWNEY v. COLIN

CASE NO.:  VC067201

HEARING: 12/26/19

JUDGE MARGARET M. BERNAL

#8

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant CITY OF DOWNEY’s Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint of PETER HARTWICK; ANDREA HARTWICK; and HARTWICK COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. CCP 430.10(e).

Moving Party to give Notice

This action was filed by Plaintiff CITY OF DOWNEY (“the City”) on June 7, 2018. Co-Defendants/Cross-Complainants PETER HARTWICK, ANDREA HARTWICK, and HARTWICK COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (collectively “Hartwicks”) filed the Subject First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FAXC”) on June 19, 2019. The FAXC alleges that the City took various actions that directly affected the Hartwicks rights to the Subject Property. In this action, the Hartwicks seek to sue the City for purported violations of their Due Process and Equal Protection Rights.

The FAXC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Injunctive Relief; (3) Breach of Lease; (4) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (5) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment of the Premises; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Negligence; (9) Constructive Eviction; (10) Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200; (11) Denial of Due Process; and (12) Denial of Equal Protection of Laws. Only the eleventh and twelfth causes of action are asserted against the City.

The City demurs to the eleventh and twelfth causes of action on the following grounds: (i) the eleventh and twelfth causes of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (ii) the Hartwicks have failed to allege compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act; (and (iii) the eleventh and twelfth causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations.

As a threshold matter, the Court finds that the FAXC is subject to demurrer because it fails to allege compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act filing requirement. The Act “represents a limited waiver of sovereign immunity to bring tort claims against the State of California and its public entities….” (Qwest Communications Corp. v. City of Berkeley (2001) 146 F.Supp.2d 1081, 1090.) The Act’s intent is “not to expand the rights of plaintiffs…against governmental entities, but to confine potential governmental liability to rigidly delineated circumstances; immunity is waived only if the various requirements of the Act are satisfied.” (Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 838.) The Act requires the timely presentation of a written claim for money or damages directly to a public entity, and the rejection of that claim, as a condition precedent to a tort action against either the public entity or an individual public employee acting within the scope of his or her employment. (Cal. Gov. Code §§911.2, 945.4, 950.2.) The Act “creates a bond between the administrative claim and the judicial complaint. Each theory of recovery against the public entity must have been reflected in a timely claim. In addition, the factual circumstances set forth in the claim must correspond with the facts alleged in the complaint. (Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1776.) “Compliance with the claim requirement is a condition precedent to suing the public entity. Complaints that do not allege facts demonstrating either that a claim was timely resented or that compliance with the claims statute is excused are subject to a general demurrer for not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. [Cite.] The claim must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. [Cite.]” (Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1 (2017) 3 Cal.5th 903, 906.)

A plaintiff/cross-complainant’s failure to comply with the Act’s mandatory requirements—timely presentation and rejection of a claim—is fatal to his or her causes of action. Therefore, a public entity may establish a complete defense to a lawsuit if the plaintiff/cross-complainant failed to comply with the Act’s claim presentation requirement. The City is a public entity. Therefore, the Hartwicks were required to submit a timely claim prior to filing their Cross-Complaint. Those facts are not alleged in the FAXC. As a result, the FAXC fails to allege compliance with the claim filing requirement.

In the interests of justice, the City’s demurrer to the eleventh and twelfth causes of action is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Because compliance with the Tort Claims Act is a condition precedent to maintaining a claim against a public entity, the Court declines to address the additional arguments in the City’s demurrer. The Court notes, however, that the facts as alleged in the FAXC appear to indicate that the eleventh and twelfth causes of action would also be barred by the statute of limitations. 

Case Number: VC067201    Hearing Date: November 26, 2019    Dept: SEC

CITY OF DOWNEY v. MARTIN COLIN, et al.

CASE NO.: VC067201

HEARING: 11/26/19

Calendar #7--Plaintiff/Cross-defendant City of Downey’s Demurrer To ROBERT MANIACI’s Cross-complaint

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff/Cross-defendant City of Downey’s Demurrer to Robert Maniaci’s Cross-complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.

Plaintiff/Cross-defendant City of Downey’s Motion to Strike Portions of Robert Maniaci’s Cross-complaint is MOOT.

City of Downey demurs to the first, second, third, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fifteenth causes of action in Robert Maniaci’s Cross-complaint. Cross-complainant/Defendant Robert Maniaci has not filed an opposition.

City of Downey moves to strike portions of Robert Maniaci’s Cross-complaint. Cross-complainant/Defendant Robert Maniaci has not filed an opposition.

On 5/10/19, Robert Maniaci filed the Cross-complaint, which alleges 15 causes of action. Only causes of action 1-3, 10-13, and 15 are against City of Downey.

DEMURRER

Under the Government Claims Act, the general rule is that any party with a claim for money or damages against a public entity must first file a claim directly with that entity; only if that claim is denied or rejected may the claimant file a lawsuit. (Gov’t Code §§ 905, 945.4; City of Ontario v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 894.) This provides the public entity with an opportunity to evaluate the claim and make a determination as to whether it will pay on the claim. (Roberts v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 474.) Failure to timely file a tort claim renders the complaint subject to demurrer. (V.C. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 499, 509 [affirming trial court decision to sustain demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that V.C.'s failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Tort Claims Act barred her action].) Here, the Cross-complaint fails to allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement under the Government Claims Act. Therefore, the demurrer to causes of action 1-3, 10-13, and 15 are SUSTAINED. The court grants 20 days leave to amend because this is the original cross-complaint. Accordingly, the City of Downey’s motion to strike is MOOT.

It is unnecessary to reach City of Downey’s remaining arguments and thus the court declines to rule on them.

Moving party to give notice.

******************************************************

CITY OF DOWNEY v. MARTIN COLIN, et al.

CASE NO.: VC067201

HEARING: 11/26/19

Calendar #7--Plaintiff/Cross-defendant City of Downey’s Demurrer to MARTIN COLIN’s Cross-complaint

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff/Cross-defendant City of Downey’s Demurrer to Martin Colin’s Cross-complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.

Plaintiff/Cross-defendant City of Downey’s Motion to Strike Portions of Martin Colin’s Cross-complaint is MOOT.

City of Downey demurs to the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth causes of action in Martin Colin’s Cross-complaint. Cross-complainant/Defendant Martin Colin has not filed an opposition.

City of Downey moves to strike portions of Martin Colin’s Cross-complaint. Cross-complainant/Defendant Martin Colin has not filed an opposition.

On 5/10/19, Martin Colin filed the Cross-complaint, which alleges 15 causes of action. Only causes of action 10-15 are against City of Downey.

DEMURRER

Under the Government Claims Act, the general rule is that any party with a claim for money or damages against a public entity must first file a claim directly with that entity; only if that claim is denied or rejected may the claimant file a lawsuit. (Gov’t Code §§ 905, 945.4; City of Ontario v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 894.) This provides the public entity with an opportunity to evaluate the claim and make a determination as to whether it will pay on the claim. (Roberts v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 474.) Failure to timely file a tort claim renders the complaint subject to demurrer. (V.C. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 499, 509 [affirming trial court decision to sustain demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that V.C.'s failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Tort Claims Act barred her action].) Here, the Cross-complaint fails to allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement under the Government Claims Act. Therefore, the demurrer to causes of action 10-15 are SUSTAINED. The court grants 20 days leave to amend because this is the original cross-complaint. Accordingly, the City of Downey’s motion to strike is MOOT.

It is unnecessary to reach City of Downey’s remaining arguments and thus the court declines to rule on them.

Moving party to give notice.

******************************************************************

CITY OF DOWNEY v. COLIN

CASE NO.: VC067201

HEARING: 11/26/19

Calendar#7--Specially Appearing Defendant MARY M. MANIACI, in his capacity as Trustee of the Robert P. Maniaci and Mary M. Maniaci Family Trust, Dated July 14, 1993’s MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS 

TENTATIVE ORDER

Specially Appearing Defendant MARY M. MANIACI, in his capacity as Trustee of the Robert P. Maniaci and Mary M. Maniaci Family Trust, Dated July 14, 1993’s Motion to Quash Service of Process is DENIED without prejudice.

Opposing Party to give notice.

This Motion was FILED by Defendant MARY MANIACI, acting as trustee for the Robert P. Maniaci and Mary M. Maniaci Family Trust, Dated July 14, 1993 (“Trust”), in pro per. Ms. Maniaci’s representation of the Trust, in pro per, is improper. A trustee’s duties in connection with his or her office do not include the right to represent argument in pro per in courts of the state, because in this capacity, such trustee would be representing the interests of others and would therefore be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. (See Ziegler v. Nickel (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 545, 548-549.)

The Motion is denied without prejudice.

Opposing Party to give notice.

Case Number: VC067201    Hearing Date: November 14, 2019    Dept: SEC

CITY OF DOWNEY v. COLIN

CASE NO.:  VC067201

HEARING:  11/14/19

JUDGE: MARGARET M. BERNAL

#8

TENTATIVE ORDER

Specially Appearing Defendant ROBERT P. MANIACI, in his capacity as Trustee of the Robert P. Maniaci and Mary M. Maniaci Family Trust, Dated July 14, 1993’s Motion to Quash Service of Process is DENIED without prejudice.

Opposing Party to give notice.

This Motion was FILED by Defendant ROBERT MANIACI, acting as trustee for the Robert P. Maniaci and Mary M. Maniaci Family Trust, Dated July 14, 1993 (“Trust”), in pro per. Mr. Maniaci representation of the Trust, in pro per, is improper. A trustee’s duties in connection with his or her office do not include the right to represent argument in pro per in courts of the state, because in this capacity, such trustee would be representing the interests of others and would therefore be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. (See Ziegler v. Nickel (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 545, 548-549.)

The Motion is denied without prejudice.

Case Number: VC067201    Hearing Date: November 06, 2019    Dept: SEC

CITY OF DOWNEY v. COLIN, et al.

CASE NO.: VC067201

HEARING: 11/6/19

JUDGE: RAUL A. SAHAGUN

#15

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defense Counsel, Bryan Whitmer-Cabrera’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Robert Maniaci is taken off-calendar as MOOT. A substitution of attorney was filed on 10/30/19.

Case Number: VC067201    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: SEC

CITY OF DOWNEY v. COLIN

CASE NO.: VC067201

HEARING: 10/31/19

JUDGE: MARGARET M. BERNAL

#9

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant/Cross-Complainant MARTIN COLIN’s Demurrer to Defendant/Cross-Defendants PETER HARTWICK; ANDREA HARTWICK; and HARTWICK COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’s Cross-Complaint is OFF-CALENDAR as MOOT.

Moving Party to give Notice.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant MARTIN COLIN’s Demurrer to Defendant/Cross-Defendants PETER HARTWICK; ANDREA HARTWICK; and HARTWICK COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’s Cross-Complaint was FILED on May 28, 2019. On June 19, 2019, Defendants/Cross-Complainants FILED their operative First Amended Cross-Complaint. Consequently, COLIN’s Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint is rendered MOOT.