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.
|
9:00
1
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
2
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
3
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
4
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.
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
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.
|
9:00
1
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.4th 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
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
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
9
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
10
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
11
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.