December 21, 2014
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 ELIZABETH K. LEE

Department 17

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2M

 

DECEMBER 19, 2014

 

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 440930       MIKE ROSEN, ET AL. VS. LEGACY QUEST, ET AL.

 

 

MIKE ROSEN                            PRO/PER

LEGACY QUEST                          BRADLEY KASS

 

 

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED BY JAMES KENNETH MENASCO

 

 

·         This motion shall be heard by Judge Joseph C. Scott at 9:00 a.m. on December 19, 2014 in Department 25.

 

·         James Kenneth Menasco’s Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED due to the failure to provide the meet and confer declaration required by CCP §2017.020(a).

 

·         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 C. Scott, Department 25.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 519758       APPLIED MEDICAL CORPORATION VS. T. PETER THOMAS, ET

                   AL.

 

 

APPLIED MEDICAL CORPORATION           RICHARD J. GRABOWSKI

T. PETER THOMAS                       SUSAN J. HARRIMAN

 

 

HEARING: MOTION RE: MOTION FOR ORDER REDESIGNATING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED BY DEFENDANTS AS "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - TTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" TO "CONFIDENTIAL" UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER BY APPLIED MEDICAL CORPORATION

 

 

·         Plaintiff APPLIED MEDICAL CORPORATION’s Motion to Redesignate Documents is GRANTED only as to the three documents attached to the Declaration of Nathaniel Garrett as Exhibits 7, 8, and 9. 

 

·         Under the Stipulated Protective Order, the parties may designate as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” only those documents that (1) contain highly sensitive or proprietary personal, business, financial and/or trade secret information and (2) the disclosure of which to another party would create a substantial risk of serious, irreparable harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.  (Decl. Garrett, Exhibit 1, ¶ 5.)  The burden of persuasion is on the party claiming confidentiality.  (Decl. Garrett, Exhibit 1, ¶ 8.) 

 

·         Here, Defendants do not meet their burden of demonstrating that Exhibits 7, 8, and 9 contain highly sensitive or proprietary personal, business, financial and/or trade secret information, the disclosure of which to Plaintiff’s management would create a substantial risk of serious, irreparable harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.  Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to redesignate these documents as “Confidential” pursuant to the Protective Order.

 

·         The Motion is DENIED as to Exhibits 11-15 of the Garrett Declaration, as Defendants have met their burden of persuasion regarding the highly sensitive nature of these documents and the risk of serious harm that would result from their redesignation. 

 

·         Finally, the Motion is MOOT as to Exhibit 16, which Defendants have voluntarily redesignated as “Confidential”. 

 

·         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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

                         


9:00

3

CIV 521193       JOSHUA W., A MINOR VS. THE REDWOOD CITY SCHOOL

                   DISTRICT, ET AL.

 

 

JOSHUA W.                             HEATHER M. SWEENEY

THE REDWOOD CITY SCHOOL DISTRI        MARK E. DAVIS

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION AS TO DEFENDANT REDWOOD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BY JOSHUA W., JOHN W. AND SHARON W.

 

 

·         This matter is Ordered off calendar.  Plaintiff filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement on December 15, 2014.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 521299       TONY CHEN, ET AL. VS. STANDARD FIBER, LLC

 

 

TONY CHEN                             JONATHAN B. GASKIN

STANDARD FIBER, LLC                   CYRUS SANAI

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS BY STANDARD FIBER, LLC

 

 

·         Defendant Standard Fiber LLC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Dellon Chen to Answer Deposition Question is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2025.480. Plaintiff is to answer whether he paid taxes on forgiveness of indebtedness income that he claims that Standard Fiber orally promised to him in 2006 for the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. 

 

·         Plaintiff is not required to provide amounts claimed on his tax returns as this information was not asked for in the Deposition Question cited in the Notice of Motion and in the Defendant’s separate statement.

 

·         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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

                            


9:00

5

CIV 524787       WILLIAM D. BRICE, Ph. D. VS. MENLO COLLEGE, INC.

 

 

WILLIAM D BRICE PH.D.                 CHARLES G. WILLIAMS

MENLO COLLEGE, INC.                   KATHERINE S. CATLOS

 

 

MOTION TO RECOVER PREVAILING PARTY ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS BY MENLO COLLEGE

 

 

·         Defendant’s unopposed Motion for an award of attorney’s fees is DENIED.  Govt. Code §12965(b) states, “In civil actions brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party, including the department, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees.”  When the prevailing party is the Defendant, fees may be awarded only if the Plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation or brought in bad faith.  Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 970, 985. 

·         In this case, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the pleadings was granted because plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies.  Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a procedural perquisite and the failure to do so does not necessarily demonstrate that Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation or brought in bad faith. 

·         To the extent the Motion also seeks an Order Awarding Costs, it is unnecessary.  CCP §1032(b) provides that a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.  To obtain a costs award, the prevailing party must file a Memorandum of Costs within 15 days after the date of service of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Dismissal or 180 days after the judgment or dismissal whichever is first.  CRC 3.1700(a).  The losing party may dispute any or all of the items in the costs memo by filing a Motion to Strike or Tax Costs 15 days after service of the costs memo (20 days if service is by mail).  CRC 3.1700(b).  After the time has passed for filing a Motion to Strike or Tax Costs or after the determination of that Motion, the clerk must immediately enter the costs on the judgment.  CRC 3.1700(b)(4); CCP §685.090(a)(2).  Here, Notice of Entry of the Judgment and a costs memo were served on November 17, 2014 and the Court’s record does not reflect plaintiff filing any Motion to Strike or Tax Costs. 

 

·         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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 527902       JOHN E. FERRY VS. LAURA J. WONS

 

 

JOHN E. FERRY                         PRO/PER

LAURA J. WONS

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH JOHN E. FERRY'S SUBPOENA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS DIRECTED TO J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK BY LAURA J. WONS

 

 

·         Defendant LAURA WONS’s Motion to Quash Business Records Subpoena is GRANTED.  Plaintiff seeks discovery related to claims which were previously litigated in San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. CIV 490434, upon which judgment has already been entered in favor of Defendant. 

 

·         The Court notes that by this current action, Plaintiff seeks to combine both his challenge to the judgment in CIV 490434 with re-litigation of the causes of action which, by virtue of that underlying judgment, have already been adjudicated in Defendant’s favor.  Accordingly, pursuant to the Court’s authority set forth in Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1048(b) and 128(a)(3), the Court on its own Motion bifurcates the First and Second Causes of Action in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint from the remainder of his claims, which are hereby stayed.  Plaintiff is required to prevail on his Causes of Action to set aside the underlying judgment and correct the records of the Court before the stay will be lifted and he is permitted to re-litigate his substantive claims against Defendant. 

 

·         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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 530374       VULCAN WARBIRDS, INC. VS. THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, ET

                   AL.

 

 

VULCAN WARBIRDS, INC.                 PHILIP L. GREGORY

THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE BY THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION

 

 

·         This matter is moot. A First Amended Complaint was filed on December 8, 2014.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

8

CIV 530676       JEFFREY SCOTT GANANIAN VS. BARBARA KUEHN, ESQ, ET AL.

 

 

JEFFREY SCOTT GANANIAN                JEFFREY S. GANANIAN

BARBARA KUEHN ESQ                     PAUL J. SMOOT

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of JEFFREY SCOTT GANANIAN BY BARBARA KUEHN, ESQ. AND LAW & MEDIATON OFFICES OF BARBARA J. KUEHN, APC

 

·         This matter is moot.  The action was dismissed against the moving party on December 18, 2014.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

9

CLJ 210212       U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL. VS. DESIREE

                   HARRIS

 

 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION        RANDALL D. NAIMAN

DESIREE HARRIS                        PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COMPLAINT (UNLAWFUL DETAINER) of U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, FILED BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, successor in interest to Bank of America, National Association as Trustee as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank, National Association as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass -Through Certificates Series 2007-OA5 Trust

 

 

·         Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.  Plaintiff has established the required elements of Unlawful Detainer under Code of Civil Procedure §1161a: Plaintiff’s ownership and right to possession through the trustee’s private sale and recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale; termination of the Defendants’ right to possession pursuant to a 3-day Notice to Quit [CCP § 1161a] and the Defendant’s continuing possession. The burden then shifts to Defendant under CCP §437c(p)(1) to establish a triable issue of material fact.  No opposition has been forthcoming.  Plaintiff is awarded a Judgment for possession only.

 

·         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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

10

CLJ 513211       PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC VS. CHARLES DURHAN

 

 

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES         EMILY PIERCE

CHARLES DURHAN

 

 

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT BY PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC

 

 

·         Plaintiff Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC‘s unopposed Motion to Vacate the Judgment is GRANTED pursuant to CCP 473. At the time of the Request for Entry of Default and the Default Judgment, the Defendant had filed a petition for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and was protected by the automatic stay provisions of Bankruptcy Code 362. Defendant ultimately received a discharge of this debt in the bankruptcy court. This rendered the judgment invalid.

 

·         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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

____________________________________________________________________

 


 

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

 

DECEMBER 19, 2014

 

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

 you must call (650) 261-5121 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 526280       NORMA SERRANO, ET AL. VS. BAY BREAD LLC, ET AL.

 

 

NORMA SERRANO                            IVAN MOE

BAY BREAD LLC                            MARK R. CURIEL

 

 

COMPLEX CASE STATUS CONFERENCE

 

 

·         Matter is deemed complex and assigned to Department 2, the Honorable Marie S. Weiner, for all purposes. Parties are directed to contact Judge Weiner’s clerk at 650-261-5102 to arrange an initial Case Management Conference.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:15 PM

© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County