Listmates:



I thought I would share with you this experience from a tentative ruling today. I had filed a motion to quash a subpoena sent out by Donahue, Bates, et al. I had sent two meet and confer letters with no response. Opposing counsel, after I filed my motion, withdrew the subpoenas and filed a non-opp with the court. I did not file a reply. Judge McMaster issued sanctions today against defense counsel citing CCP 2023.010(i) AND Standards of Professional Conduct of the Sacramento County Bar Association (adopted as part of the Court’s local rules) which says that engaging “in conduct … [that] forces opposing counsel to file a motion and then not oppose the motion] is a violation of Section 5 of the rules.

Just thought I would pass this on as it was new to me.



Jonathan G. Stein

Law Offices of Jonathan G. Stein

5050 Laguna Blvd, Suite 112 -325 Elk Grove , CA 95758

Thank you Keith D. Cable, fpr providing this, Bob Lally

Item 16

06AS03551. LAURIE MENDOZA VS. DAVID DEFFNER ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Demurrer Filed By: Mark A. Bates

Defendants' demurrer to the fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is sustained without leave to amend.
Plaintiff alleges defendants planted a vine on their property, which has grown onto plaintiff's property and has damaged a structure. She alleges defendants have ignored her requests that they remove the vine. Plaintiff has not said whether she has ever attempted to prune the vine or remove it from her property.
Not by a stretch of the most elastic imagination can one conclude that a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress can be stated based on the facts alleged in this complaint. In order to establish such a claim, plaintiff must have evidence of "conduct exceeding all bounds usually tolerated by decent society, of a nature which is especially calculated to cause, and does cause, mental distress of a very serious kind. The requirements of the rule are rigorous, and difficult to satisfy."

Yurick v. Superior Court (1989) 209 CaLApp.3d 1116, 1129. The conduct here falls far short of what is required. At most, defendants' alleged nuisance has caused property damage, which plaintiff was in a position to remedy by clipping that portion of the vine that grew onto her property. This case can be best summed up in rhyme:


Defendant planted a creeping vine That crept and crawled and soon entwined Itself in plaintiffs roof, and made a mess Causing plaintiff to suffer great distress This lawsuit followed but leaves unsaid Why plaintiff didn't whack the vine instead


Defendants shall file their answer by December 15, 2006.

This minute order is effective immediately and no
formal order is required.