January 30, 2015
Law & Motions 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 Calendar

Judge: Honorable JOSEPH C. SCOTT

Department 25

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2G

 

Friday, January 30, 2015

 

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 463382       JENNIFER M. MOORE VS. RICHARD HATFIELD, ET AL.

 

 

JENNIFER MAE ROSENBLUM                JAMES H. SEYMOUR

SANDHILL VENTURE GROUP                MERRILL G. EMERICK

 

 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS BY MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS

 

 

  • The Motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

 

  • A Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings challenges the Complaint. As with a Demurrer, the Court considers the Complaint but not the Answer. Defendant relies on its Answer, which alleges that Defendant has disclaimed all interest in the property. The Court disregards that improper argument.

 

  • The Motion is granted because the Complaint expressly alleges that in 2010 and 2011, MERS transferred “all” of its interest in the property and no longer holds any interest in the property. (See 2nd Am. Comp. ¶11(b)-(d).)  Plaintiff contends that the transfers were void for the reasons set forth in its Opposing Points and Authorities at 6:17 – 7:9. The Complaint does not allege the facts that Plaintiff describes in its Opposition.  Thus, the Complaint fails to allege ultimate facts that would, if proven, support a finding that MERS’s assignments as alleged in paragraphs 11(c) and 11(d) were void.

 

  • Plaintiff is granted leave of Court until February 13, 2015, to file and serve an Amended Complaint.

      

  • 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. 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 490011       STEVE SMITH, ET AL. VS. CAROLE DELMAR, ET AL.

 

 

STEVE SMITH                           JAMES PAUL GREEN

CAROLE DELMAR                         DENNIS J. KELLY

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY CAROLE DELMAR, JIM ELLIOT AND CAFE REAL ESTATE, INC. AGAINST STEVE SMITH AND ANNA SMITH.

 

 

·         Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is continued to March 3, 2015 at 9:00 AM in the Law & Motion Department.  There shall be no further briefing.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 496893       HERMOSA TAN VS. ANH HOUNG TRAN, ET AL.

 

 

HERMOSA TAN                           MARK C. WATSON

ANH HOUNG TRAN

 

 

MOTIONS TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY RALF BACKMANN

 

 

·         The Motion is DENIED.  CCP §415.20(b) permits a Defendant to be served by leaving copies of the Summons and Complaint at his dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business or usual mailing address.  The evidence in support of the Motion fails to show that service at the Saint Francis Drive address was not in substantial compliance with the statute.

 

·         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

4

CIV 512814       KASHIWA FUDOSAN AMERICA, INC. VS. SAMUEL H. WONG &

                   COMPANY, LLP, ET AL.

 

 

KASHIWA FUDOSAN AMERICA, INC.         TODD A. ROBERTS

SAMUEL H. WONG & COMPANY, LLP         DANIEL BERKO

 

 

MOTION FOR AWARD OF REASONABLE ATTORNYES' FEES AND COSTS BY SAMUEL H. WONG

 

 

·         Continued to February 17, 2015 at 9:00a.m. by Stipulation and Order.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 524301       LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. TIG INSURANCE

                   COMPANY

 

 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY      DAVID H. WATERS

TIG INSURANCE COMPANY                 ROBERT W. KEASTER

 

 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BY LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

 

 

  • The Motion for Protective Order by Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. with respect to the Notice of Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable by Defendant TIG Insurance Co. is GRANTED as to deposition topics No. 12 and 17-23, which are more appropriately directed to Virginia Surety Company, and DENIED as to the remainder.

 

  • 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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE BY TIG INSURANCE COMPANY

 

 

  • The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) by  Defendant TIG INSURANCE COMPANY (“TIG”), propounded on Plaintiff LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13.  Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that the documents withheld from production are protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, particularly in the context of a common interest.  [Meza v. H. Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 969, 982].

 

  • 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.

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 525068       ALPHA CARD SYSTEMS, LLC VS. JOLLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 

 

ALPHA CARD SYSTEMS, LLC               MATTHEW A. HAULK

JOLLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.              ENOCH H. LIANG

 

 

MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AND FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AGAINST PLAINTIFF ALPHA CARD SYSTEMS, LLC BY JOLLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 

 

  • The Motion for Sanctions by Jollly Technologies, Inc. and its request for issue and evidentiary sanctions is DENIED.  The moving papers do not include a Separate Statement as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(7).

 

  • Jolly Technologies’ request for Terminating Sanctions is also DENIED because it does not appear that any lesser sanctions have been imposed (i.e. issue or evidence sanctions), and the grounds for the request of terminating sanctions is questionable.

 

  • The Court, after considering the moving and opposing papers, determines that there are insufficient facts to support a finding that Alpha Card Systems willfully disobeyed the Court’s Order of Nov. 5, 2014. Thus, the request by Jolly Technologies for issuance of an Order to Show Cause Re Contempt against Alpha Card Systems is DENIED.

 

  • The requests by each side for Monetary Sanctions are DENIED.

 

  • 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 1)REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; 2)REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION; 3)FORM INTERROGATORIES; 4)SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; AND FOR SANCTIONS BY ALPHA CARD SYSTEMS, LLC

 

 

  • The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery by Plaintiff Alpha Card Systems, LLC is DENIED.  Based upon the representations of Defense counsel revised responses to the subject discovery will have been served before the time of the hearing on this Motion. To the extent further responses are provided without verifications, such verifications shall be served within 5 days after service of Notice of Entry of Order.

 

  • The requests for Sanctions by each side are DENIED.

 

  • 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.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 525588       JESSICA L. STEVENS VS. VERN WRIGHT, ET AL.

 

 

JESSICA L. STEVENS                    PRO/PER

VERN WRIGHT                           PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FORM INTERROGATORIES BY VERN WRIGHT AND JUNE WRIGHT

 

 

·         Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to defective service upon Plaintiff. Notice of this Motion required notice of 16 Court days plus five calendar days in light of the fact that it was mailed to Plaintiff. Although Defendant filed the Amended Motion to Compel on 01/09/2015, the Proof of Service for the “Amended papers for Motion to Compel” indicate that it was sent on 01/12/2015. The hearing date for the Motion is set for 01/30/2015, which is only 13 court days after the Motion was mailed (01/19/2015 was a Martin Luther King Jr. day and, thus, a Court holiday not counted towards the 16 court days). Defendant did not meet the statutory requirements for proper service under CCP 1005(b) since there is not 16 court days, plus 5 calendar days, between the mailing of the motion and the hearing date.

 

·         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

CIV 525696       KIYOMI ISHII VS. RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE CAPITAL, ET AL.

 

 

KIYOMI ISHII                          PATRICIA RODRIGUEZ

RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE CAPITAL

 

 

DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of KIYOMI ISHII BY FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

 

 

·         Moot. A dismissal of this action was filed on January 27, 2015.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

9

CIV 525758       N.A. SALES COMPANY, INC. VS. HAE-SUK LEE, ET AL.

 

 

N.A. SALES COMPANY, INC.              BRIAN H. SONG

HAE-SUK LEE

 

 

MOTION AGAINST SOON BOK PARK FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CCP §§2030.29(C), 2031.300(C) BY N.A. SALES COMPANY, INC.

 

 

·         Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion against Soon Bok Park for Terminating Sanctions Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.  Evidentiary Sanctions are GRANTED against Defendant Park. She is barred from introducing any evidence within the scope of the unanswered discovery requests. Terminating sanctions are DENIED at this stage of the proceedings.

 

·         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.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

10

CIV 529167       TERESA STEVENSON VS. MAC HOSPITALITY, INC., ET AL.

 

 

TERESA STEVENSON                      GARY W. DOLINSKI

MAC HOSPITALITY, INC.                 ANDREW M. LAUDERDALE

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT MAC HOSPITALITY, INC'S DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BY TERESA STEVENSON

 

 

·         Plaintiff Teresa Stevenson’s Motion to Quash deposition subpoenas for production of business records issued by Defendant MAC Hospitality, Inc. is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2025.420. The subpoenas are not limited in time and so violate Plaintiff’s privacy rights. [See e.g. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal App4th 1008]. The subpoenas issued by Defendant on December 8, 2014 are quashed. Defendant may issue new subpoenas to the same recipients but the records requested are limited to three years prior to the accident, June 28, 2013 to the present date.

 

·         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.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

11

CIV 529381       TAI L. FILO VS. AEGIS WHOLESALE CORPORATION, ET AL.

 

 

TAI L. FILO                           JESSICA GALLETTA

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC              LASZLO LADI

 

 

DEMURRER TO 2nd Amended COMPLAINT of TAI L. FILO BY NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, U.S. BANK, N.A. AND AURORA BANK, FSB

 

 

  • Demurrer to the First and Second Causes of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

 

  • A Demurrer admits all allegations of fact, including “any pleaded meaning to which the instrument is reasonably susceptible.” (Aragon-Haas v. Family Security Ins. Services (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 232, 239.)  Both parties acknowledge that neither the Forbearance Agreement nor the original Promissory Note states clearly when Plaintiff must pay the difference between her regular payments and the reduced payments. Defendant argues that Section 3(A) of the Deed of Trust applies. (See Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demurrer at 5:8-13.)  However, the final sentence of section 3(A) states that “If, on July 1, 2037, I still owe amounts under this Note, I will pay those amounts in full on that date, which is called the “Maturity Date.”     Thus, the Deed of Trust envisions situations in which a balance might exist at the end of the loan term after Plaintiff has paid all the required monthly payments. In that event, the balance is due on the maturity date.  Plaintiff’s argument that the difference from her Forbearance is not due until the maturity date (July 2037) is reasonably supported by this provision. Since Plaintiff alleges an interpretation to which the Contract is reasonably susceptible, the Court must accept it as true for Demurrer. Under Plaintiff’s interpretation, Defendant’s rejection of Plaintiff’s payments could constitute a breach of contract or breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or both.

 

  • The First and Second Causes of action fail, however, to allege any compensable damage. Plaintiff alleges that additional fees were charged, but not that she paid them. Plaintiff alleges attorney’s fees were incurred, but does not allege any facts that support a claim for attorney’s fees as an element of damage. Plaintiff alleges damage to credit, which is merely speculative and not quantified. Finally, Plaintiff alleges “costs of saving the property,” but no facts suggesting that any such costs were incurred.  For failure to allege damage, the first and second counts fail to state a cause of action.

 

  • The Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the third Cause of Action. A claim for specific performance requires a contract with “sufficiently definite” terms.  (Blackburn v Charnley (2004) 117 Cal. App. 4th 758, 766.) As set forth above, the terms of the Forbearance Agreement regarding the due date of Plaintiff’s accumulated principal and interest during the forbearance period are not sufficiently definite. Plaintiff does not offer any suggestion of how the defect can be cured.

 

  • Plaintiff is granted leave of court until February 13, 2015, by which to file and serve an amended complaint that addresses the First and Second Causes of Action only.

      

  • 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. 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

12

CIV 531407       GILBERTO GONZALEZ, ET AL. VS. MARCIA BROWN

 

 

GILBERTO GONZALEZ                     WILLIAM R. CONKLIN

MARCIA BROWN                          PRO/PER

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of GONZALEZ BY MARCIA BROWN

 

 

  • The general and special Demurrers are OVERRULED.  Plaintiff’s form complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a common count based on an open book and provides sufficient facts to enable Defendant to respond.  Defendant shall file an Answer no later than February 17, 2015.

 

  • 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

13

CLJ 521295       CAVALRY SPV I, LLC VS. ROXANA I. BARHAGHI

 

 

CAVALRY SPV I, LLC                    PETER R. OSTERMAN

ROXANA I. BARHAGHI

 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY ROXANA I. BARHAGHI

 

 

  • The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.   Defendant has not provided proof that the Motion was served in compliance with CCP §1005.  The proof of service indicates the moving papers were mailed to Suttell, Hammer & White.  No address is provided.  Plaintiff’s counsel of record is Krista L. White & Associates.  Furthermore, there is no evidence to support a finding that Defendant’s default was taken as the result of mistake, surprise, in advertence of excusable neglect as the supporting declaration is not signed under penalty of perjury.

 

  • 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.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County