If an appearance is required or if a party has provided timely notice of intent to appear, any party may appear telephonically through Court Call. To do so, you must contact Court Call at (888) 882-6878 no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day prior to the hearing.

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

Presiding Judge - Law and Motion Calendar

Judge: Honorable Stephen m. hall

Department 24

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2C

NOVEMBER 4, 2009

If you plan to appear on any case on this calendar,

you must call (650) 363-4812 before 4:00 p.m.

Case Title / Nature of Case

9:00

CIV 479352 FITRACO N.V. VS HOWARD YOUNG

FITRACO N.V. MIKE C. BUCKLEY

HOWARD N. YOUNG SCOTT R. SHEWAN

HEARING: APPEARANCE OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR ADRIENE M. HU.

· APPEAR.

HEARING: APPEARANCE OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR HOWARD N. YOUNG.

· APPEAR.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CIV 481114 BIRITE RESTAURANT SUPPLY, INC. VS MCCOY FAMILY MANAGEMENT, INC.

BIRITE RESTAURANT SUPPLY, INC. DAVID J. COOK

MCCOY FAMILY MANAGEMENT, INC.

HEARING: APPEARANCE OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR MATTHEW MCCOY.

· APPEAR.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CLJ 476955 JAMES R. MISSETT VS RICHARD KOO

JAMES R. MISSETT WILLIAM B. GUSTAFSON

RICHARD KOO

HEARING: APPEARANCE OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR RICHARD KOO.

· APPEAR.

___________________________________________________________________

9:00

CLJ 482610 THE LAGO CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOC. VS RHODA CARINO

THE LAGO CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION KEVIN D. FREDERICK

RHODA REYES CARINO

HEARING: APPEARANCE OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR RHODA REYES CARINO.

· APPEAR.

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

Law and Motion Calendar

Judge: Honorable john l. grandsaert

Department 11

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2D

NOVEMBER 4, 2009

If you plan to appear on any case on this calendar,

you must call (650) 363 - 1882 before 4:00 p.m.

Case Title / Nature of Case

9:00

CIV 473516 FLORENCIO NAZARENO VS MAX LO

FLORENCIO NAZARENO TERENCE A. REDMOND

MAX LO SARA J. SAVAGE

MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST FILED BY FLORENCIO NAZARENO AND BEVERLY NAZARENO.

· Plaintiffs’ Motion to Augment Expert Witness List is DENIED.

· Plaintiffs have failed to move to reopen discovery, which is a prerequisite to the Court’s hearing of this Motion. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4^th 1568, 1588.)

· Moreover, the instant Motion also required the submission of a meet and confer declaration. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc., supra, at pg. 1587; Code of Civ. Proc. Sec. 2024.050.)

· Plaintiffs filed this Motion, setting it for hearing 5 days before the then-existing trial date, which was not the initial date set for trial. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they sought leave to augment promptly, or that the failure to designate an appraiser was the result of surprise, mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Id.; see Code of Civ. Proc. Secs. 2024.030 and 2034..210, et seq.)

· Responding party shall prepare and submit (first to opposing counsel as required) a formal order complying with California Rule of Court 3.1312 for the Court’s signature.

· If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CIV 474500 LAURA CERVANTES-RUIZ VS JOSE GUADALUPE RUIZ

LAURA CERVANTES-RUIZ B. J. FADEM

JOSE GUADALUPE RUIZ WILLIAM A. BAULD

MOTION FOR ORDER MODIFYING SUBPENA AND AWARDING MONETARY SANCTIONS FILED BY JOSE GUADALUPE RUIZ.

· Defendant’s Motion to Modify the Subpoenas by eliminating document categories One and Twelve is GRANTED.

· The request for sanctions is DENIED.

· Moving party shall prepare and submit (first to opposing counsel as required) a formal order complying with California Rule of Court 3.1312 for the Court’s signature.

· If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.

___________________________________________________________________

9:00

CIV 476366 HORACIO FREITAS VS DUC C. NGUYEN

HORACIO FREITAS RICHARD M. KELLY

DUC C. NGUYEN KELLY M. LYNCH

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES FILED BY HORACIO FREITAS AND MARIA FREITAS AGAINST DUC C. NGUYEN, DBN, INC. AND WILLIAMSON-DBN.

· The Court has been notified that this matter has settled. Accordingly, the instant Motion is moot and is ordered OFF CALENDAR.

___________________________________________________________________

9:00

CIV 477881 THE CADLE COMPANY II, INC. VS MARILYN BELL

THE CADLE COMPANY II, INC. CARL N MARSCHALL

MARILYN BELL LAWRENCE A. JACOBSON

MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL ORAL DEPOSITON FILED BY THE CADLE COMPANY II, INC.

· The Motion is DENIED.

· The Motion fails to include a declaration that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subd. (b)(1) and (2) [no showing of good cause for production of documents; no declaration re inquiry with deponent about nonappearance].

· Defendant Bell’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

· Responding party shall prepare and submit (first to opposing counsel as required) a formal order complying with California Rule of Court 3.1312 for the Court’s signature.

· If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CIV 478939 VIRGILIO AQUINO VS EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION

VIRGILIO AQUINO WILLIAM E. JEMMOTT

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION JOHN M. SORICH

DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF AQUINO FILED BY MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM ABD EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION.

· Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s and EMC Mortgage Corporation’s Demurrers to the First Amended Complaint are OVERRULED in their entirety.

· Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

· Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and EMC Mortgage Corporation shall file and serve their Answers to the Complaint on or before November 20, 2009.

· Responding party shall prepare and submit (first to opposing counsel as required) a formal order complying with California Rule of Court 3.1312 for the Court’s signature.

· If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.

____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CIV 481628 RICHARD VAN DER LINDE VS STEVE BRUNI

RICHARD VAN DER LINDE WILLIAM R. WARHURST

STEVE BRUNI TODD A. ANGSTADT

MOTION TO COMPEL WITNESS TO COMPLY WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA AND FOR SANCTIONS FILED BY RICHARD VAN DER LINDE AND JANELLE VAN DER LINDE.

· Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena is MOOT, and DENIED on that basis. Witness Russell E. Jackson appeared for his deposition on October 13, 2009.

· The Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED. Sanctions in the amount of $2,462.50 are ordered paid by Russell E. Jackson to Plaintiffs on or before November 18, 2009.

· Moving party shall prepare and submit (first to opposing counsel as required) a formal order complying with California Rule of Court 3.1312 for the Court’s signature.

· If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CIV 482219 VIRGILIO CONSTANTINO VS NDEX WEST, LLC

VIRGILIO CONSTANTINO TRACY L. WOOD

NDEX WEST, LLC EDWARD A. TREDER

DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF CONSTANTINO FILED BY WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

· Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., dba AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.

· An action to set aside a trustee’s sale for irregularities in sale notice or procedure should be accompanied by an offer to pay the full amount of the debt for which the property was security. (Arnolds Management Corp. v. Eischen (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 575, 578-580; Abdallah v. United Sav. Bank (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109.) Here, Plaintiff alleges only that he attempted a loan modification, which is insufficient to meet the tender requirement.

· Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to all matters.

· Moving party shall prepare and submit (first to opposing counsel as required) a formal order complying with California Rule of Court 3.1312 for the Court’s signature.

· If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CIV 484831 REID DRUCKER VS ORACLE CORPORATION

REID DRUCKER NATHAN GOLDBERG

ORACLE CORPORATION TRACY L. SCHEIDTMANN

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO STAY ACTION PENDING ARBITRATION FILED BY ORACLE CORPORATION AND ORACLE USA, INC.

· The parties have requested that this matter be taken off calendar in that the parties have stipulated to binding arbitration. Good cause appearing therefore, this matter is ordered OFF CALENDAR.

____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CIV 486140 TODD SMITH VS CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY

TODD SMITH PRO/PER

CALIFORNIA RCONVEYANCE COMPANY JOHN M. SORICH

DEMURRER TO PETITION OF SMITH FILED BY CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY AND JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

Defendants’ Demurer to Complaint is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend, as follows:

· The Complaint is uncertain pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(f). Defendants cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied. Plaintiffs fail to plead any factual allegations in support of the causes of actions asserted against Defendants.

· The Complaint contains no evidentiary facts in support of the cause of action for an injunction under Code of Civil Procedure section 526 (Counts I, IV, VII). Plaintiffs submit no facts regarding what harm they will suffer or as to why Defendants should be enjoined from foreclosing on the property. Plaintiffs fail to even identify the property that is the subject of this action.

· The Complaint contains no evidentiary facts in support of the cause of action to set aside or vacate the trustee’s sale (Counts II, V, VIII). Plaintiffs fail to identify the subject property, provide the details of the sale, or attach a copy of the notice of trustee’s sale. Plaintiffs further fail to allege any present ability to tender the amount of indebtedness owed or to allege any procedural defect associated with the foreclosure proceeding.

· The Complaint contains no evidentiary facts in support of the cause of action for unjust enrichment (Counts III, VI, IX). Plaintiffs fail to allege what “benefit” they have conferred upon Defendants or how Defendants have improperly retained such benefit.

· Plaintiffs shall file a First Amended Complaint on or before November 17, 2009.

· Moving party shall prepare and submit, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312, a formal order for the Court’s signature.

· If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CLJ 478012 PALISADES ACQUISTION XVI, LLC VS SEANN VALEN

PALISADES ACQUISITION XVI, LLC LOURDES R. SLINSKY

SEANN VALEN

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD FILED BY PALISADES ACQUISITION XVI, LLC.

· This case has been dismissed. Accordingly, the instant Motion is moot and is ordered OFF CALENDAR.

__________________________________________________________________

9:01

CIV 482335 SAMUEL LEE VS FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, INC.

SAMUEL LEE CHRISTOPHER COLE

FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, INC. KATHRYN KLAUS

DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT OF LEE FILED BY FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, INC.

· The Request for Judicial Notice filed by Defendant Farmers Group, Inc. is DENIED. The assertion that Farmers Group, Inc. is not licensed to transact the business of insurance in the state of California is not relevant to the instant Demurrer. To the extent Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of a declaration filed in support of the prior Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint, that request is DENIED. The contents of the declaration are not relevant and are not material of which judicial notice may be properly taken.

· The Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED. The assertion that Farmers Group, Inc. is not licensed to transact the business of insurance in California, even if a fact of which the Court could properly take judicial notice, does not defeat the Breach of Contract Cause of Action. A party could enter into a contract to insure the property of another despite lacking a proper license permitting it to do so.

· Responding party shall prepare and submit a formal order complying with California Rule of Court 3.1312 for the Court’s signature.

· If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.