February 8, 2016
Law & Motion Department Tentative Rulings
  • Law and Motion Department Tentative Ruling Line:  (650) 261-5019
  • Other Judges' tentatives: please reference the appropriate Case Number and Case Caption below and contact the appropriate department.

Telephonic Appearances (CourtCall): If an appearance is required or if a party has provided timely notice of intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. to the court and all parties, any party may appear telephonically through CourtCall. To do so, you must contact CourtCall at (888) 882-6878 no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day prior to the hearing. Notifying CourtCall with your intent to appear is not an alternative to notifying the court. Please visit their website for more information. Please also see California Rule of Court No. 3.670.

 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Law and Motion

Judge: Honorable JOSEPH C. SCOTT

Department 25

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2G

 

Friday, February 5, 2016

 

IF YOU INTEND TO APPEAR ON ANY CASE ON THIS CALENDAR YOU MUST DO THE FOLLOWING:

1. YOU MUST CALL (650) 261-5019 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. TO INFORM THE COURT OF YOUR INTENT TO APPEAR.

2. You must give notice before 4:00 P.M. to all parties of your intent to appear pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1308(a)(1).

 

Failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral presentation.

 

N.B. Notifying CourtCall with your intent to appear is not an alternative to notifying the court.  

 

All Counsel are reminded to comply with California Rule of Court 3.1110.  The Court will expect all exhibits to be tabbed accordingly. 

 

    Case                  Title / Nature of Case

9:00

1

CIV 522607       NICOLE AND KYLE MCDEVITT VS. DEC, ET AL.

 

 

NICOLE MCDEVITT                       RAMSEY KAWAR

DEC                                   JON B. ZIMMERMAN

 

 

DEMURRER TO first Amended COMPLAINT of MCDEVITT BY DEC

 

  • Demurrer on the ground that the Court has disqualified the attorney who drafted the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED. The case cited in support has no bearing on this case. (Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135.)  The agreements drafted by the lawyer in Fair were void only because the lawyer failed to inform the client fully about client’s rights under the agreements. The trial court found that the business transactions were “fair and reasonable,” and that one business was “tremendously successful.” (Id. at1146.) Thus, the malfeasance was not performing worthless work, but failure to provide full disclosure to the client. The conflict in Fair was not the same type of conflict in the present case. Fair does not stand for the proposition that all conflicts of interest render all attorney work worthless.
  • Demurrer to the third cause of action (breach of implied covenant) is OVERRULED. The Demurrer attacks tortious breach of the implied covenant, which is not part of the Complaint. The demurrer fails to address the actual claim, which is contractual breach of the implied covenant. (See, e. g.  (Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal. App. 4th 497, 524-25.)

 

  • Demurrers to the fourth and fifth causes of action (fraud, negligent misrepresentation) are SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.  Fraud is based on an intentional false statement of fact or of opinion that the speaker does not honestly hold. Fraud must be pleaded with factual specificity. (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal. 3d 197, 216.) Plaintiffs must plead facts showing how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered. (Lazar v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 631, 645.) The fourth cause of action alleges that Defendant intentionally underbid the job. The allegation is not sufficiently specific to allege who made the representation, to whom, and what statement of fact was made. The bare allegation that “Defendants underbid the project in order to increase their profits” lacks sufficient factual specificity. (FAC ¶¶60 & 61.)

 

  • Demurrer to the sixth cause of action is overruled. The claim may be based on a single incident. Defendant’s argument that the claim requires a pattern is based on old law. Section 17200 was amended in 1992 from “business practice” to “business act or practice.”  A single instance of such conduct may suffice. (Podolsky v. First Healthcare Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 632, 647, 653.) The Hewlett case cited by Defendant’s Reply concerned conduct occurring before the amendment. (See Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp. (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 499, 518 n.7 [noting amendment, but not applied retroactively].) The complaint alleges unlawful conduct in the form of violating Business and Professions Code section 5536(a). (FAC ¶ 35.)  Since the complaint alleges a violation of law, it sufficiently alleges “unlawful” business practice.   

 

  • Demurrer to the seventh cause of action (declaratory relief) is OVERRULED. A claim for declaratory relief is permissible to address an actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, “including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1060.)  The moving papers offer no comprehensible argument setting forth how the seventh cause of action fails to allege a controversy between the parties pertaining to the construction contract. (See Moving P&A at 7-9.) At a minimum, the complaint alleges that the parties dispute, among other things, the manner in which the construction contract calculates various payments. (FAC ¶¶ 83-86.)

 

 

  • Plaintiff is granted leave of court until February 19, 2016, to file and serve an amended complaint addressing the deficiency of the fourth and fifth causes of action.

 

·        If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. 

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE SPECIFIED ALLEGATIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEC

 

 

·         The Motion to Strike allegations regarding punitive damages is MOOT as to paragraph 69 (fourth cause of action), since the demurrer to the fourth cause of action is sustained. The motion is GRANTED as to item 4 in the Prayer. Without the fourth cause of action, no claim exists to support a request for punitive damages. (Notice of Motion, Item 1.)

 

·         The Motion is GRANTED as to paragraph 16. (Notice of Motion, Item 3). The complaint lacks ultimate facts supporting the conclusions of paragraph 16. (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538-39; see also Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co. (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 838-40.)

 

 

·         The Motion is DENIED as to “references to Corey McMills as defendant.” (Notice of Motion, Item 2.) Even if no alter ego relationship existed between Defendants DeC and Corey McMills, the Complaint clearly alleges claims against Corey McMills personally.

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. 

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE SPECIFIED ALLEGATIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY COREY MCMILLS

 

 

·         The Motion to Strike allegations regarding punitive damages is MOOT as to paragraph 69 (fourth cause of action), since the demurrer to the fourth cause of action is sustained. The motion is GRANTED as to item 4 in the Prayer. Without the fourth cause of action, no claim exists to support a request for punitive damages. (Notice of Motion, Item 1.)

 

·         The Motion is GRANTED as to paragraph 16. (Notice of Motion, Item 3). The complaint lacks ultimate facts supporting the conclusions of paragraph 16. (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538-39; see also Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co. (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 838-40.)

 

 

·         The Motion is DENIED as to “references to Corey McMills as defendant.” (Notice of Motion, Item 2.) Even if no alter ego relationship existed between Defendants DeC and Corey McMills, the Complaint clearly alleges claims against Corey McMills personally.

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. 

 

DEMURRER TO first Amended COMPLAINT of MCDEVITT BY COREY MCMILLS

 

 

  • Demurrer on the ground that the Court has disqualified the attorney who drafted the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED. The case cited in support has no bearing on this case. (Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135.)  The agreements drafted by the lawyer in Fair were void only because the lawyer failed to inform the client fully about client’s rights under the agreements. The trial court found that the business transactions were “fair and reasonable,” and that one business was “tremendously successful.” (Id. at1146.) Thus, the malfeasance was not performing worthless work, but failure to provide full disclosure to the client. The conflict in Fair was not the same type of conflict in the present case. Fair does not stand for the proposition that all conflicts of interest render all attorney work worthless.
  • Demurrer to the third cause of action (breach of implied covenant) is OVERRULED. The Demurrer attacks tortious breach of the implied covenant, which is not part of the Complaint. The demurrer fails to address the actual claim, which is contractual breach of the implied covenant. (See, e. g.  (Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal. App. 4th 497, 524-25.)

 

  • Demurrers to the fourth and fifth causes of action (fraud, negligent misrepresentation) are SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.  Fraud is based on an intentional false statement of fact or of opinion that the speaker does not honestly hold. Fraud must be pleaded with factual specificity. (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal. 3d 197, 216.) Plaintiffs must plead facts showing how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered. (Lazar v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 631, 645.) The fourth cause of action alleges that Defendant intentionally underbid the job. The allegation is not sufficiently specific to allege who made the representation, to whom, and what statement of fact was made. The bare allegation that “Defendants underbid the project in order to increase their profits” lacks sufficient factual specificity. (FAC ¶¶60 & 61.)

 

  • Demurrer to the sixth cause of action is overruled. The claim may be based on a single incident. Defendant’s argument that the claim requires a pattern is based on old law. Section 17200 was amended in 1992 from “business practice” to “business act or practice.”  A single instance of such conduct may suffice. (Podolsky v. First Healthcare Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 632, 647, 653.) The Hewlett case cited by Defendant’s Reply concerned conduct occurring before the amendment. (See Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp. (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 499, 518 n.7 [noting amendment, but not applied retroactively].) The complaint alleges unlawful conduct in the form of violating Business and Professions Code section 5536(a). (FAC ¶ 35.)  Since the complaint alleges a violation of law, it sufficiently alleges “unlawful” business practice.   

 

  • Demurrer to the seventh cause of action (declaratory relief) is OVERRULED. A claim for declaratory relief is permissible to address an actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, “including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1060.)  The moving papers offer no comprehensible argument setting forth how the seventh cause of action fails to allege a controversy between the parties pertaining to the construction contract. (See Moving P&A at 7-9.) At a minimum, the complaint alleges that the parties dispute, among other things, the manner in which the construction contract calculates various payments. (FAC ¶¶ 83-86.)

 

 

  • Plaintiff is granted leave of court until February 19, 2016, to file and serve an amended complaint addressing the deficiency of the fourth and fifth causes of action.

 

  • If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 529743       MARQUETTE SHURELDS VS. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.

 

 

MARQUETTE SHURELDS                    SARAH ADELAARS

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.                 JASON M. RICHARDSON

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC

 

·         Request for Judicial Notice by Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC and Wilmington Trust is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code §452(d).

 

·         Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC and Wilmington Trust’s objections to Plaintiff’s declaration in opposition to the motion for summary judgment by Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC and Wilmington Trust are SUSTAINED as to objections 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 and OVERRULED as to objections 1, 3, 8 and 10.

 

·         Objections to the additional material facts submitted by Plaintiff in opposition to the motion for summary judgment by Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC and Wilmington Trust are SUSTAINED/OVERRULED as follows:  As to Issue 1: objections numbers 1, 2, 3 and 7 are sustained and objections numbers 5, 6 are overruled. There is no objection to numbers 4 and 8. As to Issue 2: objections numbers 4, 6, 7 are sustained and objections numbers 2, 3 and 5 are overruled. There is no objection to numbers 1 and 8. As to Issue 3: objections numbers 1, 2 are sustained and objections numbers 3, 4 are overruled. There is no objection to number 5. As to Issue 4: objections numbers 3, 5, 7 are sustained and objections numbers 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are overruled. There is no objection to numbers 1, 8.

     .

·         The Motion for Summary Judgment brought by Defendants is DENIED. Defendants have met their initial burden under CCP §437c(p)(2) by showing that one or more of the elements of each cause of action cannot be met. The burden then shifts to plaintiff under CCP 437c(p)(2) to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action.  The Plaintiff has met that burden establishing triable issues of material fact as to the 2nd cause of action for violation of Civil Code §2923.7 and the 3rd cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

 

 

·         The Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to the following issues: the 1st cause of action for violation of Civil Code 2923.6 and the 4th cause of action for violation of 12 USC §2605.

 

 

·         As to the 1st Cause of Action, the Plaintiff has not created a triable issue of material fact as to whether he did submit a timely and complete loan modification package prior to the recording of the notice of default. He is unable to produce evidence showing that he submitted a completed application that the servicer deemed to be complete, or that he had supplied all documents as required by the servicer. (Civil Code §2923.6(c), (l), See also material facts 27, 28, 29). As to the 4th Cause of Action, the Plaintiff has not created a triable issue of material fact to show that the QWRs were mailed to the correct address. (See material facts 22, 23). The servicer’s duties under RESPA are not triggered unless the borrower has sent them to the correct address.

 

·         Moving parties are directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 530285       RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER, ET AL. VS. FARIN NAMDARAN YEGANEH

 

 

RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER                 AMANDA FITZSIMMONS

FARIN NAMDARAN YEGANEH                DANIEL L. CASAS

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER, ET AL.

 

 

·         The Motions to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Ramin Yeganeh is GRANTED IN PART.  Defendant shall provide further verified responses to the following items in dispute within 15 days of service of notice of entry of order:  1) Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 24-33 and 43-44.  Defendant has not provided the information required by CCP §2031.230.  2) Form Interrogatory 17.1 as to Requests for Admission 30-31.  Defendant’s response to subparts (c) and (d) is incomplete and evasive.  Defendant’s opposition essentially concedes that persons with knowledge and supporting documents were omitted from his response.  To the extent he argues plaintiffs were already aware of this information, he cites no authority supporting his assertion that he was not required to provide it.   CCP §2030.220(b) concerns the scope of a party’s duty to inquire of others when the party lacks sufficient personal knowledge to respond to an interrogatory.  It is not applicable here.  Moreover, information regarding witnesses and documents supporting defendant’s denial is not information equally available to plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs are entitled to a response identifying all of the witnesses and documents supporting Defendant’s denial of the requests for admission. 

 

·         The motion is denied as to any other response in dispute as Plaintiffs have not established that defendant’s responses are insufficient. 

 

  • Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied as defendant’s position with respect to at least some of the responses in dispute is substantially justified. 

 

  • Moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY

 

 

·         See above.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 532619       LAWRENCE TIMKO, ET AL. VS. PETSMART, INC., ET AL.

 

 

LAWRENCE TIMKO                        FRANK M. PITRE

PETSMART, INC.                        LAURA LEIGH GEIST

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY PETSMART, INC., ET AL.

 

 

·         Moot. A notice of settlement was filed January 21, 2016.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 533615       21X PROPERTIES LP VS. MASON-TARLTON CO., LLC

 

 

21X PROPERTIES LP                     ANDREW P. HOLLAND

MASON-TARLTON CO., LLC                WALTER R. SCHNEIDER

 

 

MOTION TO FIX UNDERTAKING (SET BOND AMOUNT) OF RECEIVER BY HARRY I. PRICE

 

  • The Motion to Fix Undertaking [Set Bond] of Receiver by Receiver Harry Price is continued to Thursday February 18, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. in Department 28.

 

  • All receiver matters in the San Mateo County Superior Court are assigned for hearing before the Hon. George Miram, Dept. 28. The receiver in this matter was appointed in Department 28, on July 30, 2015. This motion to fix the undertaking [bond] for the receiver, who was appointed in Department 28 must also be heard in that department. Judge Miram hears such matters on Thursday afternoons at 2:00 p.m. The first available date in his department is Thursday, February 18, 2016. The matter is continued to be heard in Department 28 on Thursday February 18, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 534313       HEE JOO YANG VS. ELIZABETH R. KIM, ET AL.

 

 

HEE JOO YANG                          DAVID Y. CHUN

ELIZABETH R. KIM                      TYLER M. PAETKAU

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION BY HEE JOO YANG

 

Form Interrogatories to Elizabeth Kim and Sung Tae Kim

 

  • The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 2.1 is DENIED as moot because an amended response was provided.

 

  • The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 2.5, 2.7, 2.11, 3.7, 12.1 & 15.1 is GRANTED.  Defendant shall provide a full and complete response. Defendants argue Plaintiff already has some of this information; however, if such is the case then the information would not be private.

 

  • The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is GRANTED so Defendants can provide a full and complete response as to Request for Admissions Nos. 2 & 4 and the identification of those employees with knowledge.

 

 

 

Form Interrogatories to T & E Food Company

 

 

  • The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED as to No. 12.1 & 15.1.   Defendant shall provide a full and complete response.

 

  • The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is GRANTED.   Defendants shall provide a full and complete response as to Request for Admissions Nos. 2 & 4 and the identification of those employees with knowledge.

 

 

 

Special Interrogatories to T & E Food Company and Special Interrogatories to Elizabeth Kim and Sung Tae Kim

 

  • Amended responses were provided as to Special Interrogatories 2, 3, 17, 18 & 19 and thus the Motion to Compel as to those Interrogatories is DENIED as being moot.

 

  • The Motion to Compel Further Responses as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 is GRANTED.   Defendants shall provide a full and complete Code compliant response.

 

  • The Motion to Compel Further Responses as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 7 & 9 is DENIED because moving party’s Separate Statement does not state that Defendants did not respond to the interrogatory.

 

·         The Motion to Compel Further Responses as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 11 & 14 is GRANTED.  Defendants shall provide a full and complete response and provide the last known address and phone number for persons disclosed.

 

·         The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 12, 13 & 16 are DENIED because there is no direct relevance as to the sought information which does invade the privacy of third person. The third persons are not limited to witnesses of the conduct infringed upon plaintiff. The parties should review Life Technologies Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 640 and then meet and confer to see if there is a proper way to obtain the sough information.

 

  • The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatory No. 15 is DENIED, a response was provided.

 

 

Request for Production of Documents to T & E Food Company

 

 

·         T & E Foods Company served amended responses to the following Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 33, 34, 35 and 37 which are all thus DENIED as being moot.

 

·         The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, 19, 21 & 31 is DENIED.  Defendant T&E has responded that it will produce all non-privileged documents.   Defendant  T&E shall provide a privilege log for all withheld documents based upon a privilege.

 

·         The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents as to Requests Nos. 16, 17 and 18 is DENIED for failing to demonstrate fact specific good cause (CCP section 2031.310(b)(1))

 

 

Request for Production of Documents to Elizabeth Kim and Sung Tae Kim

 

·         The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents as to Elizabeth Kim and Sung Tae Kim is DENIED as to Nos. 1 – 9, 11 – 13, 16 - 20, 25 – 32.   Moving party did not comply with the requirement that they demonstrate fact specific good cause in order to compel further responses (CCP section 2031.310(b)(1))

 

  • The Motion as to Request No. 10 is DENIED.  Defendants failed to demonstrate fact specific good cause as required by CCP section 2031.310(b)(1).

 

·         The Motion as to Request No. 21 is DENIED; however, for any and all documents withheld because of privilege defendants shall provide a privilege log.

 

  • The Motion as to Request No. 33 is DENIED.   Defendants failed to demonstrate fact specific good cause as required by CCP section 2031.310(b)(1).

 

 

 

  • The requests for monetary sanctions by the parties are DENIED.
  • Where indicated, further verified responses shall be provided within 15 days of receipt of notice of entry of order.

 

  • Plaintiff’s attorney is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 536302       SEBASTIAN BROWN PRODUCTIONS, INC. VS. TACPOINT, INC.

 

 

SEBASTIAN BROWN PRODUCTIONS, INC.     DAVID M. DUSHANE

TACPOINT, INC                         CRAIG J. MARIAM

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of SEBASTIAN BROWN PRODUCTIONS, INC BY TACPOINT INC.

 

 

·         The demurrer brought by Defendant Tacpoint Inc. is rendered moot based the filing on a First Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Sebastian Brown Productions, Inc. on January 26, 2015.

 

·         The parties are directed to read and consider the applicability of sections CCP 430.41 and CCP 472 as they relate to the instant demurrer.

 

·         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, 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

8

CLJ 425549       CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, USA, N.A VS. CHI H. KIM

 

 

CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, USA, N.A        AMY L GORDON

CHI H KIM

 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT BY THE ACCOUNTS RETRIEVABLE SYSTEM

 

 

·         The unopposed Motion the Set Aside Satisfaction of Judgment by Plaintiff The Accounts Receivable Systems, LLC is GRANTEED pursuant to CCP 473(b).

 

 

·         Moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:01

9

CLJ 212222       DENNIS WILLIAMS VS. EDWARD WILLIAMS, ET AL

 

 

DENNIS WILLIAMS                       PRO/PER

EDWARD WILLIAMS

 

 

HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT (UNLAWFUL DETAINER) of WILLIAMS FILED BY EDWARD WILLIAMS

 

 

  • The unopposed Motion to Quash by Defendant Edward Williams is GRANTED. Defendant has declared under penalty of perjury that the Plaintiff personally served him with the summons and complaint and that he was not served by any other person. This violates the requirements of CCP §414.10 rendering the service ineffective.

 

·         Moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


 

 

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 JOHN L. GRANDSAERT

Department 11

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2D

 

Friday, February 5, 2016

 

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

 you must call (650) 261-5111 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).

 

Case                   Title / Nature of Case

9:00

1

CIV 533561       MARY CHEN-TE VS. J&M FOOTWEAR, INC.

 

 

MARY CHEN-TE                          BRYAN J. MCCORMACK

J&M FOOTWEAR, INC.                    JOSEPH A. LEPERA

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE BY STIPULATION OF PARTIES BY J&M FOOTWEAR, INC.

 

·         For good cause shown, the Motion for an Order Continuing Trial Date by Stipulation of Parties is GRANTED. The current jury trial date of May 23, 2016 is vacated and reset to August 22, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.  The current mandatory settlement conference date of May 10, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. is vacated and reset to August 12, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.  Discovery deadlines will reset based on the new trial date. Moving party J&M Footwear, Inc. to provide notice of this order to all parties.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County