In the Superior Court of the State of California In and for the County of San Mateo   Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable JOSEPH E. BERGERON Department 4   400 County Center, Redwood City Courtroom 2B   May 17, 2013

 

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).

 

Case                   Title / Nature of Case

9:00

1

CIV 458146    BILAL KARTAL VS. MICHAEL CHANG, ET AL.

 

 

BILAL KARTAL                                    JOHN D. NELSON

MICHAEL CHANG                                   GREGG S. GARRISON

 

 

JOINDER OF EUN KYUNG LEE TO MOTION TO DISMISS MICHAEL CHANG'S CROSS COMPLAINT

 

 

·         The Motion to Dismiss is off calendar at the request of the moving party. 

 

·         The Motion for Reconsideration of Pre-trial Order No: 19 shall be heard by Judge Foiles on May 17, 2013 in Dept. 21 at 9:00 a.m. 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

9:00

2

CIV 498554    CITY NATIONAL BANK, N.A. VS. FRANCIS WAHNAM TANG, ET AL.

 

 

CITY NATIONAL BANK, N.A.                        BOB BENJY

FRANCIS WAHNAM TANG                             HUSSEIN SAFFOURI

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FILED BY FRANCIS WAHNAM TANG, JANE TANG, THE GREEN EFFECT, LLC

 

 

·         At the request of moving party Defendants, the hearing of this matter is continued to June 21, 2013.  Counsel for Defendants shall give written notice of the new hearing date. 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

9:00

3

CIV 504746    BRODERICK PAGE, ET AL. VS. WESLEY WON, ET AL.

 

 

BRODERICK PAGE                                  RONALD R. ROSSI

WESLEY WON                                      ANTHONY F. PINELLI

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY WESLEY WON, DOROTHY WON

 

 

·         OFF CALENDAR.  Case settled. 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

9:00

4

CIV 508750    WILLIAM T. FARRIS VS. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT, ET AL.

 

 

WILLIAM T. FARRIS                               JUAN M. SIMON

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT            MARK F. HAZELWOOD

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of FARRIS FILED BY SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT

 

 

·         OFF CALENDAR.  Case settled. 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

9:00

5

CIV 510934  HERITAGE PACIFIC FINANCIAL, LLC VS. DANIEL BLAKELY, ET AL.

 

 

HERITAGE PACIFIC FINANCIAL, LLC                 BRAD A. MOKRI

DANIEL BLAKELY                                  ALI A. AALAEI

 

 

JOINDER OF MICHAEL D. JOHNSON TO DEMURRER OF DANIEL BLAKELY

 

·         See tentative ruling below. 

 

 

DEMURRER TO 2nd Amended COMPLAINT of HERITAGE PACIFIC FINANCIAL, LLC BY DANIEL BLAKELY

 

·         The Defendant Blakely's request for judicial notice is DENIED. 

 

·         The Defendant Johnson’s Joinder in Blakely’s demurrer is DENIED.  Johnson has already filed an Answer.  The court declines Johnson’s offer to treat his joinder as a joinder in a motion for judgment on the pleadings as no such motion is before the court. 

 

·         Blakely's demurrer to the 2nd amended complaint is sustained without leave to amend.  Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that the lender's assignment of the promissory note included an assignment of the lender's tort claims against the borrower.  (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 26.) 

 

·         The 3rd cause of action for breach of contract fails to state sufficient facts showing how defendant's use, execution and transmission of the URAR created a contract.  Also, the 3rd cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations as it alleges that defendants breached the contract on February 18, 2007. 

 

·         Moving 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 to 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 E. Bergeron, Department 4. 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

9:00

6

CIV 513268    STEPHANIE SHARP VS. VITTORIO VALDEZ

 

 

STEPHANIE SHARP                                 DAVID C. ANDERSON

VITTORIO VALDEZ                                 MARTIN J. AMBACHER

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY LEE VALDEZ

 

·         The Defendant Lee Valdez’s unopposed Motion to Strike the punitive damages claim is GRANTED insofar as they are asserted against her, but not as to Defendant VITTORIO. 

 

 

DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of SHARP BY LEE VALDEZ

 

·         The Defendant LEE VALDEZ’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.  

 

·         The Plaintiff brings causes of action for premises liability and negligence against Defendant LEE for the criminal conduct of Defendant’s grandson, VITTORIO.  Generally speaking, there is no duty to control the conduct of another, nor to warn those endangered by such conduct.  Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 203. 

 

·         However, a duty may arise by virtue of a special relationship, such as that of a landowner and invitee.  The First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant herself has been the victim of intimidation, aggression and battery at the hands of her grandson.  Thus, Defendant had actual or constructive notice of Vittorio’s violent tendencies, and Plaintiff’s injury was reasonably foreseeable.  Both Plaintiff and Defendant cite to Wise v. Superior Court (1990) 222 Cal.App. 3d 1008, which held:

 

·         If the actor permits a third person to use land or chattels in his possession otherwise than as a servant, he is, if present, under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control the conduct of the third person as to prevent him from intentionally harming others or from so conducting himself as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them, if the actor:

 

·         (a) Knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control the third person, and

 

·         (b) Knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control.  Id. at 1013-1014.  

 

·         Here, Defendant LEE knew of the necessity of exercising control over her grandson, who lived at the residence with her, and further had the ability to exercise such control.  Defendant, having been abused herself, could have refused entry to Vittorio, obtained and enforced a restraining order, or called the police.  The First Amended Complaint sufficiently states causes of action for premises liability and negligence as against LEE. 

 

·         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 to 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 E. Bergeron, Department 4. 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

9:00

7

CIV 517187    ERIKA MENDOZA, ET AL. VS. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.

 

 

ERIKA MENDOZA                                   HAKOP KESHISHYAN

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.                           KATE E. HART

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of MENDOZA BY BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.

 

 

·         OFF CALENDAR.  Amended complaint filed. 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

9:00

8

CLJ 207699    CANTRELL, HARRIS & ASSOCIATES VS. ASIAN JOURNAL, INC.

 

 

CANTRELL, HARRIS & ASSOCIATES                   JOSHUA D. WATTS

ASIAN JOURNAL, INC.                             ASHTON WATKINS

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES & DISCOVERY PRODCUTION BY CANTRELL, HARRIS & ASSOCIATES

 

·         See tentative ruling below. 

 

 

MOTION TO DEEM ADMISSIONS & REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY CANTRELL, HARRIS & ASSOCIATES

 

·         The motion to compel defendant to respond to requests for admission is MOOT.  The declaration of Ashton Watkins indicates responses have been served.  

 

·         However, the plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted.  Defendant shall pay plaintiff $265 within 15 days. 

 

·         The motion to deem facts admitted is GRANTED.  

 

·         CCP §2033.280(b) provides that the court shall make an order deeming facts admitted unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response that is in substantial compliance with CCP §2033.220.  Although the Watkins declaration states that responses were served, counsel has not provided a copy.  Therefore, the court cannot determine whether the responses are in substantial compliance with §2033.220. 

 

·         If, however, defendant appears and provides proof that the responses are substantially compliant, the motion will be DENIED. 

 

·         Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.  CCP §2033.280(c) provides that an award of sanctions is mandatory as to the party whose failure to serve a timely response necessitated the motion.  Defendant shall pay plaintiff $337.50 within 15 days. 

 

·         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 to 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 E. Bergeron, Department 4. 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

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 ROBERT D. FOILES Department 21   400 County Center, Redwood City Courtroom 2J   MAY 17, 2013

 

If you plan to appear on any case on this calendar,  you must call (650) 363-4813 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 458146    BILAL KARTAL VS. MICHAEL CHANG, ET AL.

 

 

BILAL KARTAL                                    JOHN D. NELSON

MICHAEL CHANG                                   GREGG S. GARRISON

 

 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY BILAL KARTAL

 

·         This matter is continued to 05/31/13 at 9:30 A.M. in Department 21 for hearing. 

 

 

JOINDER OF CHRISTOPHER CHANG IN BILAL KARTAL’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

·         This matter is continued to 05/31/13 at 9:30 A.M. in Department 21 for hearing. 

 

 

JOINDER OF EUN KYUNG LEE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

·         This matter is continued to 05/31/13 at 9:30 A.M. in Department 21 for hearing. 

 

 

JOINDER OF SUNRISE CLEANERS, INC. TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

·         This matter is continued to 05/31/13 at 9:30 A.M. in Department 21 for hearing. 

 

 

JOINDER OF GRACE & KUNEO YAMAGUCHI TRUST TO BILAL KARTAL’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

·         This matter is continued to 05/31/13 at 9:30 A.M. in Department 21 for hearing. 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________