January 17, 2017
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 Calendar

Judge: Honorable RICHARD H. DuBOIS

Department 16

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 7A

 

Friday, January 13, 2017

 

NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL

 

Until further order of the Court, no endorsed-filed “courtesy copy” of pleadings is required to be provided to the Law and Motion Department.

 

 

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.

 

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

Line: 1

CIV531155     LUIS M. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. VS. ZOROBABEL MORENO, ET AL.

 

 

LUIS MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ TORRES           JUAN M. SIMON

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR

 

 

motion FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING TERMINATING SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant Zorobabel Moreno’s unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions as to Plaintiff Luis Miguel Rodriguez Torres is GRANTED.  The court is imposing a terminating sanction pursuant to CCP §§2023.010 and 2025.450(d) for Mr. Torres failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery: form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production of documents as well asto pay court-ordered monetary sanctions. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed as to Defendant Zorobabel Moreno

 

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

Line: 2

CIV533934     LOVE YOUR SMILE, ET AL. VS. KATHERINE BROWN, ET AL.

 

 

LOVE YOUR SMILE INC.                   RONALD P. GOLDMAN

KATHERINE BROWN                        CHARLES J. KATZ

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Cross-Defendants motion for summary judgment is dropped from calendar at the request of the moving parties.

 



9:00

Line:

CIV536355     PACIFIC BELL VS. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ET AL

 

 

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY         STEVEN D. RATHFON

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO                    JOHN C. BEIERS

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS to Utiliquest, LLC; and Request for Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant and Cross-Complainant MP Nexlevel of California, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents to UtiliQuest, LLC is DENIED for two reasons:

     First:  The document request at issue in the motion is unduly burdensome because it is overbroad in seeking the production of GPS records for a 100-mile radius from the intersection in question and was to cover a period of 14 days.

     Secondly: the document request was included in a deposition notice of Hugh Savage. Mr. Savage testified at his deposition that he did not have access to these records and did not know who would. The document demand was made of Mr. Savage and the moving party cannot now compel someone other than Mr. Savage to produce the documents.

     The request for sanctions is DENIED.

 

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

Line: 4 & 5

CIV536465     RICHARD FERN, ET AL. VS. IRA FERN, ET AL.

 

 

RICHARD JAMES FERN                     RUSSELL H. TOWNSEND

IRA GEORGE FERN                        MARK C. WATSON

 

 

4. TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS brought by defendant and cross-complainant tim gannon

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Tim Gannon’s motion to compel Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Richard Fern to provide further responses to special interrogatories, form interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission is DENIED.  Calif. Rule of Court 3.1345 requires that the supporting Separate Statement include all discovery requests and responses at issue in the motion.  Here, the Separate Statement does not include any discovery requests or responses.  The motion is also moot in light of Plaintiff Richard Fern’s further responses to these discovery requests, served on or about Dec. 21, 2016. 

 

The moving party argues that Plaintiff forced the filing of these motions to compel by not responding promptly to Defendants’ Dec. 7, 2016 meet and confer letter.  Plaintiff’s counsel states, in response, that he sent a Dec. 15, 2016 response letter promising to serve further discovery responses, even though he was in the midst of preparing for his noticed Dec. 21 vacation.  Plaintiff then served further discovery responses from Dec. 17-23.  While Plaintiff’s counsel could have responded more promptly, the Court declines to award sanctions under these circumstances.  

 

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.

 

 

5. TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS BROUGHT BY DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT IRA FERN

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Ira Fern’s motion to compel Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Richard Fern to provide further responses to Ira Fern’s discovery requests is addressed as follows:  As to the requests for production of documents and special interrogatories, the motion is DENIED on grounds the supporting  Separate Statement does not include any requests for production of documents or special interrogatories.  See Calif. Rule of Court 3.1345(c).  As to the requests for admission and the related form interrogatory No. 15.1, Plaintiff Richard Fern initially served responses denying Requests Nos. 1-5.  This was apparently a mix-up because Ira Fern served 14 total Requests.  Richard Fern indicates in his Opposition he later resolved the problem and served further responses to all 14 requests for admission, as well as the related form interrogatory No. 15.1.  Given the recently-served further responses, the Court DENIES the motion as moot. 

 

The moving party argues that Plaintiff forced the filing of these motions to compel by not responding promptly to Defendants’ Dec. 7, 2016 meet and confer letter.  Plaintiff’s counsel states, in response, that he sent a Dec. 15, 2016 response letter promising to serve further discovery responses, even though he was in the midst of preparing for his noticed Dec. 21 vacation.  Plaintiff then served further discovery responses from Dec. 17-23.  While Plaintiff’s counsel could have responded more promptly, the Court declines to award sanctions under these circumstances.  

 

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

Line: 6

CIV536798     MONICA ZENO VS. AMGEN INCORPORATED, ET AL

 

 

MONICA ZENO                            LAUREL MOUSSEAU

AMGEN INCORPORATED                     BRIAN M. RAGEN

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS'SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR PERSONNEL RECORDS, DISABILITY RECORDS, AND MEDICAL RECORDS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion to quash is continued to February 2, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department

 



9:00

Line: 7

CIV538295     ANDREW WATTERS VS. ANNA KIHAGI, ET AL.

 

 

ANDREW WATTERS                         Pro/PER

ANNA KIHAGI

 

 

MOTION for ORDER TRANSFERING CASE TO APPROPRIATE COURT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is dropped from calendar in light of the Stipulation filed by the parties an January 10, 2017.

 

 



9:00

Line: 8 - 10

CIV538649     ACW MANAGMENT COMOANY VS. PROSPECT WATER CO, LLC

 

 

ACW MANAGEMENT COMPANY                 SERVANDO R. SANDOVAL

PROSPECT WATER CO., LLC                ROGER M. MANSUKHANI

 

 

8. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR

SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff ACW MANAGEMENT COMPANY’s Motion to Compel Further production of documents from Defendant PROSPECT WATER CO., LLC, dba CULLIGAN WATER OF SANTA CLARA appears to be MOOT, Defendant having served supplemental responses on December 23, 2016, and Plaintiff voicing no objection as to their substance in its Reply papers.  (See Plaintiff’s Objection and Reply, filed January 6, 2017, at p. 4:17-19.) 

 

However, Plaintiff continues to seek monetary sanctions for having to file the instant motions, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sections 2023.010(d); 2023.030; 2030.290(c); and 2031.300(c).  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,340.00 against Defendant, and is to be paid no later than February 3, 2017.    

 

 

 

9. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff ACW MANAGEMENT COMPANY’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Defendant PROSPECT WATER CO., LLC, dba CULLIGAN WATER OF SANTA CLARA appears to be MOOT, Defendant having served supplemental responses on December 23, 2016, and Plaintiff voicing no objection as to their substance in its Reply papers.  (See Plaintiff’s Objection and Reply, filed January 6, 2017, at p. 4:17-19.) 

 

Plaintiff is awarded sanctions and the sanction is included in sanctions awarded in the order compelling production of documents

 

 

10. MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff ACW MANAGEMENT COMPANY’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from Defendant PROSPECT WATER CO., LLC, dba CULLIGAN WATER OF SANTA CLARA appears to be MOOT, Defendant having served supplemental responses on December 23, 2016, and Plaintiff voicing no objection as to their substance in its Reply papers.  (See Plaintiff’s Objection and Reply, filed January 6, 2017, at p. 4:17-19.) 

 

Plaintiff is awarded sanctions and the sanction is included in sanctions awarded in the order compelling production of documents

 

 



9:00

Line: 11

CLJ534435     ROBERT A. GULINO VS. CUBEYOU, INC.

 

 

ROBERT A. GULINO                       SYDNEY J. HALL

CUBEYOU, INC                           JAMES M. MCDERMED

 

 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY FOR CUBEYOU, INC.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel James McDermed and the Alberts Firm, APC law firm’s motion to withdraw as counsel for defendant Cubeyou, Inc., is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §284(2). Counsel has used the required forms and provided notice to his client, and to all other parties who have appeared in the case per CRC § 3.1362(d).

 

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 Richard H. DuBois, Department 16. 

 

 



9:00

Line: 12

CLJ536890     PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC VS. MARCO A.

                 MAESTRINI

 

 

MARCO A. MAESTRINI                     Pro/PER

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC     ANTHONY DIPIERO

 

 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §452(d).

 

Plaintiff Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC’s unopposed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 438(c)(1)(A) and CCP §2033.410(a). Based on the Request for Admissions that were deemed admitted by the court on October 14, 2016, the plaintiff has established all of the allegations of the complaint.  Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the principal sum of $7,433.00 together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from January 7, 2016 and costs in the amount of $450.00 [pursuant to a memo of costs] for a total judgment of $7,883.00.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, moving party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County