August 27, 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

 

AUGUST 22, 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 458258       DAVID MELCHNER VS. ELIZABETH KARNAZES

 

 

DAVID MELCHNER                        PRO/PER

ELIZABETH KARNAZES                    PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE MEMORANDUM OF COSTS ON APPEAL OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TAX APPELLATE COSTS BY JOHN J. HARTFORD

 

 

·         Judgment Creditor/Cross-Defendant John J. Hartford’s Motion to Strike Memorandum of Costs on Appeal is GRANTED.  A memorandum of costs on appeal must be filed and served within 40 days to claim the costs.  CRC Rule 8.276(c)(1). 

·         The Remittitur in this case was issued on April 14, 2014, and the clerk of the court notified the parties on that date in writing.  Not counting the first day and including the final day, the 40th day fell on May 25, 2014.  Although Cross-Complainant’s Proof of Service states that the Memorandum was mailed to the court on May 22, 2014, it was not filed by the court clerk until May 28, 2014.  She has not demonstrated sufficient mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect under CCP § 473(b) to warrant relief from the filing requirements under CRC Rule 8.276(c)(1).

·         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 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

2

CIV 499877       WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS. DAVID CONTRERAS, ET AL.

 

 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.                SAMY S. HENEIN

DAVID CONTRERAS                       BRIAN W. NEWCOMB

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COMPLAINT of WELLS FARGO BANK,

N.A. FILED BY WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

 

 

·         This matter has been withdrawn from the calendar per stipulation of the parties and re-scheduled for October 1, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

3

CIV 515674       CHRISTINA ABELLERA, ET AL. VS. STEVE HUNG CHIU, ET

                   AL.

 

 

CHRISTINA ABELLERA                    MARK W. SWANSON

STEVE HUNG CHIU                       G. KELLEY REID

 

 

MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT WITNESSES OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO COMPEL EXPERT DEPOSITIONS BY CHRISTINA ABELLERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR CHRISTIAN MANDIGNA, JAMES SACDALAN AND ABCD SACDALAN

 

 

·         Plaintiffs CHRISTINA ABELLERA, CHRISTIAN MANDIGNA, JAMES SACDALAN and ABCD SACDALAN’s Motion to Exclude Expert Witnesses is DENIED.  The Court finds that the initial and supplemental expert witness disclosures made by Defendant EBAY, INC. satisfy the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2034.260 and 2034.280 such that exclusion of Defendant’s supplemental experts is not warranted.

 

·         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 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.

 

 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BY EBAY, INC.

 

 

·         Defendant EBAY, INC.’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED.  Plaintiffs are ordered to make their primary expert witnesses available for deposition first before Defendant’s supplemental experts, who are being offered only as rebuttal witnesses.

 

·         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 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

4

CIV 523087       BARBARA CAULLEY VS. NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY,

                   ET AL.

 

 

BARBARA CAULLEY                       AMANDA L. RIDDLE

NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY        MICHAEL J. VARTAIN

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO MICHAEL CAULLEY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BY BARBARA CAULLEY

 

 

·         These motions are moot.  The Court has been advised that the case settled on August 18, 2014.

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA OF MS. KAREN SMITH FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS BY NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY, JUDITH MAXWELL GREIG, DIANA DEMETRULIAS AND HENRY ROTH

 

 

·         These motions are moot.  The Court has been advised that the case settled on August 18, 2014.

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY, JUDITH MAXWELL GREIG, DIANA DEMETRULIAS AND HENRY ROTH

 

 

·         These motions are moot.  The Court has been advised that the case settled on August 18, 2014.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

5

CIV 523261       APELU FINAUGA, ET AL. VS. REMY'S QUALITY

                   CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

 

 

APELU FINAUGA                         CONOR GRANAHAN

REMY'S QUALITY CONSTRUCTION, INC.     DAN BEATTY

 

 

MOTION TO BIFURCATE ISSUES OF LIABILITY FROM ISSUES OF DAMAGES AT TRIAL BY REMY J. SIJBRANT

 

 

·         This matter is moot.  Moving Party, Defendant Remy J. Sijbrant, has requested that this matter be dropped from calendar as the trial in this case has been continued to February 23, 2015.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

6

CIV 524598       SIMON DAVID AVIEL VS. SCOTT DUCHIN, INC., et al.

 

 

SIMON DAVID AVIEL                     BRUCE M. LUBARSKY

CHRISTINA WILLIAMSON                  CRAIG HARRIS COLLINS

 

 

DEMURRER TO SECOND Amended COMPLAINT of AVIEL BY SCOTT DUCHIN

 

 

·         The hearing on this Demurrer is continued to September 26, 2014 to provide Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a complete opposition should he desire to do so.  Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition shall be due on or before September 11, 2014; any supplement reply shall be due on or before September 18, 2014.

 

·         The statement that the Unlawful Detainer is stricken must be considered in context with Civil Code § 1952.3, which states that when possession is no longer an issue the case becomes an ordinary civil action.  Thus, the action was not stricken, merely the unlawful detainer aspects.

 

·         The parties are instructed to meet and confer regarding this case and Case No. CLJ201005 to determine how to proceed and whether a consolidation would be in order. In doing so the parties are encouraged to review Civil Code §§ 1952.3 and 1952.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

7

CIV 525953       RONNALYN BORDON VS. SEVILLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

                   ET AL.

 

 

RONNALYN BORDON                       PRO/PER

SEVILLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION        ELAINE R. LEE

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRST Amended CROSS-COMPLAINT of SEVILLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BY RONNALYN BORDON

 

 

·         The Demurrer as to the 3rd Cause of Action is sustained with leave to amend.  Cross-Complainant has not alleged a defamatory statement.  The Amended Cross-Complaint merely makes the conclusory allegation that Cross-Defendant made disparaging statements about Cross-Complainant, which imputed business dishonesty to it.  

 

·         The Demurrer as to the 4th Cause of Action is sustained with leave to amend.  Cross-Defendant’s prior demurrer was sustained with leave to amend to allege facts showing actual disruption of the contract and resulting damages.  The Amended Cross-Complaint still fails to allege the necessary facts. 

 

·         The Demurrer as to the 6th Cause of Action is sustained without leave to amend.  The First Amended Cross-Complaint still fails to allege a willful act in the use of a legal process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.  Simply filing a lawsuit for an improper purpose is not an abuse of process.  Trear v. Sills (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1341. 

 

·         The general Demurrer is overruled as to the 1st, 2nd and 5th Causes of Action.   

 

·         The special Demurrers for Lack of Capacity, Uncertainty and Inability to Ascertain Whether the Contract is Written, Oral or Implied are overruled.    

 

·         Demurring 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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

8

CIV 526642       SOLOMON TSAI, ET AL. VS. BETTY P.P. HSU, ET AL.

 

 

SOLOMON TSAI                          DONALD J. PUTTERMAN

BETTY P.P. HSU                        CHARMAINE G. YU

 

 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING DEPOSITION OF BRIAN YANG BY BETTY P.P. HSU AND C&G VENTURE CAPITAL, LLC

 

 

·         The Motion for Protective Order Prohibiting the Deposition of Brian Yang is denied.  The motion is based exclusively on the ground that Plaintiffs fail to meet the requirements for deposing opposing counsel as set forth in Carehouse Convalescent Hosp. v. Superior Court ( 2001) 143 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1563 and Spectra-Physics, Inc. v Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1487, 1494.

   

·         The prohibitions against deposing opposing counsel applies to opposing litigation counsel.  It does not apply to a transactional attorney who represented the opposing party during the events that gave rise to the lawsuit.    In both Carehouse and Spectra-Physics, the litigant sought to depose the opposing party’s litigation counsel.  Both Courts recognized the policies for disallowing depositions of opposing counsel in litigation. (Spectra-Physics, supra, at 1494 [“practice of forcing trial counsel to testify . . . has long been discouraged;” “disrupting the adversarial nature” of litigation; adding to “time and costs of litigation;” “Counsel should be free to [prepare] client's case without fear of being interrogated by his or her opponent”].)  The ruling and rationale behind Carehouse and Spectra-Physics pertain only to the problems of deposing opposing counsel during litigation and not to deposing non-litigation counsel.

 

·         Defendants argue that the prohibitions against deposing lawyers is not limited to just trial lawyers, but also to transactional lawyers.  (See moving Points and Authorities at 10:18 – 11:20 [citing City of Los Angeles v Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 819, 833 [work product protection applies to attorneys working in a "nonlitigation capacity"] and Titmas v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 738, 744.)  The contention lacks merit.  Both cases address only whether the work product protection applies to transactional lawyers.  Neither case addresses the issue of whether the strong prohibition against depositions of litigation counsel also applies to transactional lawyers.

 

·         The motion cites no authority supporting the contention that transactional counsel falls within the scope of Carehouse or Spectra-Physics.  The motion is without substantial justification. The Court grants Plaintiffs’ Request for Sanctions in the amount of $5,250.00, representing 15 hours at the reasonable rate of $350 per hour, for this noncomplex motion.  The motion provides no evidence of time incurred by Plaintiffs’ attorney Putterman or the firm’s paralegal.

 

·         The law office of Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP shall pay the sanction of $5,250 to Plaintiffs Solomon Tsai and Karen Lu no later than September 5, 2014.

 

·         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 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

9

CIV 528744       RINNA DEL ROSARIO VS. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ET AL.

 

 

RINNA DEL ROSARIO                     GREGORY P. BROCK

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO                   BRIAN E. KULICH

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of DEL ROSARIO BY COUNTY OF SAN MATEO AND EDUARDO KIRYCZUN

 

 

·         Defendant Eduardo Kiryczun’s general Demurrer to the 1st Cause of Action for Discrimination and the 2nd Cause of Action for Retaliation is sustained without leave to amend.  Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640; Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1173.

 

·         Defendant County of San Mateo's general Demurrer to the 1st Cause of Action for Discrimination is sustained with leave to amend.  Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege the element of an adverse employment action.

 

·         Defendant County of San Mateo's general Demurrer to the 2nd Cause of Action for Retaliation is sustained with leave to amend.  Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege facts showing the required elements of an adverse employment action and a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.

 

·         Defendant County of San Mateo's general Demurrer to the 3rd Cause of Action for Harassment is sustained with leave to amend.  Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege facts showing how the disclosure of her confidential medical condition altered her conditions of employment or that Kiryczun’s alleged disclosure was done to harass her because of her disability or that he knew of her disability at the time.

 

·         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 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

 

AUGUST 22, 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 505103       DAVID KAROW, ET AL. VS. CARMEN M MADRIGAL ET AL

 

 

DAVID KAROW                           JOSHUA JK HENDERSON

CARMEN MENDOZA-MADR IGAL                   MARK C. RASKOFF

 

 

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL BY EVENFLOW COMPANY, INC.

 

 

·         APPEAR.  

      _____________________________________________________________________

 


9:00

2

CIV 516550       IAR SYSTEMS SOFTWARE, INC. VS. NADIM SHEHAYED, ET AL.

 

 

IAR SYSTEMS SOFTWARE, INC.            ANTONIO VALLA

NADIM SHEHAYED                        JEFFREY M. CURTISS

 

 

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE BY NADIM SHEHAYED AND NADINE ABOU-HAIDAR

 

 

·         APPEAR.  

 


 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:15 PM

 

© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County