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 GERALD J.
BUCHWALD
Department 10
400 County Center, Redwood City
Courtroom 8D
JULY 28, 2010
|
If
you plan to appear on
any case on this calendar,
you must call (650) 363-1882 before
4:00 p.m. and you must give notice also before 4:00 p.m. to all parties of
your intent to appear pursuant to California
Rules of Court 3.1308(a)(1).
|
9:00
1
CIV
482215 ROOSEVELT
KEYES VS. TEISHA TALLMAN
ROOSEVELT KEYES PRO/PER
TEISHA
TALLMAN TODD P.
EMANUEL
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FILED BY TEISHA TALLMAN
- GRANTED
IN PART; DENIED IN PART.
- The Supplemental Responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 9, 11 and 16 moot this Motion because the original
response solely consisted of objections and the Supplemental Responses
provided a response to these Interrogatories. Therefore, the Motion as to Special
Interrogatories Nos. 9, 11 and 16 is DENIED as moot.
- As for Special Interrogatories Nos. 13
and 15, Supplemental Responses are basically the same response as the
original responses. However, there
does not appear to be anything improper with the original responses. Thus, the Motion as to Interrogatories
Nos. 13 and 15 is DENIED.
- The Motion as to Special Interrogatory
No. 19 is GRANTED, and the responsive information shall be served upon
cross-complainant on or before August 20, 2010. Said response, however, shall be subject
to a protective order as set out below.
·
As to Special Interrogatory No. 19, the Court finds
that the mere identity of Mr. Keyes’ female massage customers from his date of
hire to date of termination is not information where the customers had a
reasonable expectation of privacy. Nor
is the information such that disclosure would be a serious invasion of privacy.
Disclosure is not so sensitive here.
Alternatively, the Court finds that the interests of the litigants and
the public in public proceedings. The
discovery of the identity and location of persons having discoverable knowledge
are proper subjects of civil discovery.
·
In reaching the above-stated findings, the Court
relies on Pioneer Electronics (USA) v. Superior Court ( ) 40 Cal.
4th 360, at 370-371, and Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal. App.4th 1242, 1245
– 1250.
·
Because private information is involved, however,
shall be subject to disclosure only to the attorneys for the parties and their
employees, i.e., “attorneys eyes only”, until entry of a formal Confidentiality
Order by this Court.
·
Counsel to prepare and submit a form of Order
reflecting this ruling and to prepare and submit a form of Confidentiality
Order governing the production of the requested information.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
2
CIV
486140 TODD SMITH VS. CALIFORNIA
RECONVEYANCE company
TODD
SMITH JONATHAN
FRIED
CALIFORNIA
RECONVEYANCE COMPANY JOHN M. SORICH
MOTION
TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FILED BY J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA., ANN THORN,
CALIFORNIA RCONVEYANCE COMPANY
·
CCP
§581(f)(1) provides that the Court may dismiss a Complaint after a demurrer is
sustained without leave to amend and either party moves for dismissal. Where a party is given leave to amend and
fails to so within the time specified by the court, an action is subject to
dismissal under CCP §581(f)(2). Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc.
(2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 610.
·
In this case, on 3/24/10, the Court sustained
defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint with and without leave to amend. Plaintiffs were given until 4/3/10 to serve
an amended Complaint. As of the date of
this Motion, they have not done so. Consequently, the action is hereby Dismissed
With Prejudice, defendant to recover its costs on Dismissal.
·
The tentative ruling becomes the
order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10,
effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other
notice is required, as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the
parties.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
3
CIV 486926 JOSE DE JESUS FREGOSO VS. NATIONAL CITY
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
JOSE
DE JESUS FREGOSO MICHAEL
PATRICK ROONEY
PNC
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION STUART
B. WOLFE
MOTION
TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT BY PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
·
DENIED AS MOOT.
DEMURRER
TO COMPLAINT of FREGOSO BY PNC
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
·
SUSTAINED, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, ON GROUNDS OF
UNCERTAINTY. The Demurrer to the First, Second,
Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action is SUSTAINED
with leave to amend based on uncertainty.
Regardless of prior rulings, the allegations made with respect to the
Demurring Defendant are uncertain, where there are almost no allegations made
specifically against the Demurring Defendant yet many allegations are made
against “Defendants,” which should include the Demurring Defendant, even though
Plaintiffs essentially admit in their Opposition that these allegations are not
intended against the Demurring Defendant.
If Plaintiffs seek to make Demurring Defendant a part of the instant
action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 389, then the allegations should
so reflect.
·
The tentative ruling becomes the
order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10,
effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other
notice is required, as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the
parties.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
4
CIV
490030 TOTAL RENAL CARE, INC. VS. JSP
ENTERPRISES, LLC., ET AL.
TOTAL
RENAL CARE, INC., JOHN H.
FEENEY
JSP
ENTERPRISES, LLC. NANCY J.
DEPASQUALE
DEMURRER
TO SECOnd Amended COMPLAINT of
TOTAL RENAL CARE, INC., BY JSP
ENTERPRISES, LLC., JAMES H. YANG
·
SUSTAINED, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, IN PART; OVERRULED IN
PART.
- Defendants JSP Enterprises, LLC and
James H. Yang’s special demurrer to the 2nd cause of action (breach of
contract) and general demurer to the 4th cause of action (negligent
misrepresentation) are Overruled. The Complaint is sufficiently certain as
to the allegation that both JSP and Yang entered into the subject lease.
As to Yang, alter ego is sufficiently pled.
- Defendants’ general demurrer to the 2nd
( breach of contract) and 3rd cause of action (bad faith) is
Sustained With Leave To Amend as to Plaintiff Davita Inc. and Overruled as
to Defendant James H. Yang. The Complaint does not plead a third party
beneficiary status of Davita Inc., and it follows from that defect that no
claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing can
be asserted by Davita. As to Yang, however, there are sufficient alter ego
allegations and he can be held liable on both these causes of action if
those allegations are true.
·
Amended Pleadings, if any, to be filed and served
within 20 days of this Order.
·
The tentative ruling becomes the
order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10,
effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other
notice is required, as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the
parties.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
5
CIV
495309 NAOMI BROWN SOBOCINSKI VS. ALAN
D. BROWN, ET AL.
NAOMI
BROWN SOBOCINSKI ISAAC
DELEON GOODMAN
ALAN
D. BROWN DENNIS W. CHIU
DEMURRER
TO COMPLAINT of SOBOCINSKI BY
ALAN D. BROWN, A-ABCO RENTS & SELLS, INC.
·
OFF CALENDAR. A First Amended Complaint having been
filed on July 7, 2010, this Demurrer is now Moot and is Ordered off-calendar.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
6
CLJ
487748 FIRST RESOLUTION INVESTMENT
CORP. VS. JOHNNY W. BROWNING
FIRST
RESOLUTION INVESTMENT CORP. ROBERT
SCOTT KENNARD
JOHNNY
W. BROWNING PRO/PER
MOTION
FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES FILED BY FIRST RESOLUTION INVESTMENT CORP.
·
HEARING REQUIRED. Plaintiff’s counsel to address
whether or not the Defendant’s responsive documents are adequate to show the
basis of his defense that the debt has already been paid.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
7
CLJ 490078 ADVANCED DISCOVERY SERVICES VS. LAW OFFICES
OF JOSEPH CARCIONE, ET AL.
ADVANCED
DISCOVERY SERVICES RUDY GABA
LAW
OFFICES OF JOSEPH CARCIONE JOSEPH
W. CARCIONE
MOTION
TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS FILED BY ADVANCED DISCOVERY SERVICES
·
OFF CALENDAR. The Court is in receipt of a letter
dated July 22, 2010, from Movant’s Counsel advising that a Settlement of the
case is pending and requesting that this matter go off-calendar. It Is So
Ordered.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
8
CLJ
491265 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, LLC. VS.
AMBER D. WILLIAMS, ET AL.
FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, LLC. ROBERT
SCOTT KENNARD
AMBER
D. WILLIAMS PRO/PER
MOTION
FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSE FILED BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY, LLC.
·
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s
unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Answers to
Interrogatories and to Deem Matters Admitted is GRANTED.
·
On
April 14, 2010, Plaintiff served Defendant Amber Williams with the following
discovery requests: Request for Production of Documents [Set No. 1]; Form
Interrogatories [Set No. 1]; and Request for Admissions, Set No. One. Verified responses were due on or before May
19, 2010. No responses were received and
on June 3, 2010 a letter was mailed to Defendant requesting responses to the
discovery by June 14, 2010. No discovery
responses were received.
·
Defendant
has waived any objections to the discovery requests and shall provide complete
and verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, and Form
Interrogatories, without objection, by
August 11, 2010. All of those matters
set forth in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set No. One are hereby deemed
admitted. Defendant shall additionally
pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $265.00 by August 11,
2010.
·
The tentative ruling becomes the
order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10,
effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other
notice is required, as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the
parties.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:01
9
CLJ
201896 SIMON S. LAM VS. RICHARD
GUMPAL, ET AL.
SIMON
S. LAM KEN A.
CHAN
RICHARD
GUMPAL
DEMURRER
TO COMPLAINT (UNLAWFUL DETAINER) of
LAM BY CINDY GUMPAL
·
OVERRULED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Defendant Cindy Gumpal’s demurrer to the complaint is OVERRULED without
prejudice for failure to provide proper notice pursuant to CCP §1005(b) and CRC
Rule 2.306(a)(1).
·
The tentative ruling becomes the
order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10,
effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other
notice is required, as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:02
10
CIV
496200 RAJESH PATEL VS. GORDON
DRUMMOND
RAJESH
PATEL WILLIAM F.
DEVINE
GORDON
DRUMMOND
PETITION
TO COMPEL ARBITRATION.
·
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s petition to compel binding
arbitration is denied without prejudice due to failure to provide a proof of
service of either the petition or the Notice of Hearing.
·
The tentative ruling becomes the
order of the court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10,
effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other
notice is required, as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the
parties.
_____________________________________________________________________
