July 29, 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, July 24, 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 526702†††††† STEPHEN J. LENTZ vs. VIRGIN AMERICA, INC.

 

 

STEPHEN J. LENTZ††††††††††††††††††††† E. SEAN ARTHER

VIRGIN AMERICA, INC.††††††††††††††††† RONALD J. HOLLAND

 

 

MOTION COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE, FURTHER RESPONSES TO RE, QUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND TO IMPOSE MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,900 BY STEPHEN J. LENTZ

 

 

 

The Court notes that Section 2031.300 reads as follows:

 

 

ďIf a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:

 

(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 ÖThe court, on motion (emphasis added), may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

 

(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240 and 2031.280.

 

(2) The partyís failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.Ē

 

 

  • There is no motion, of which the Court is aware, seeking relief from the waiver provisions of CCP 2031.300.

 

  • Plaintiffís Motion to Compel Further Response to Document Requests is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 38 & 41. Defendant shall provide further responses WITHOUT OBJECTIONS to each of these Document Requests, together with responsive documents within 20 days after service of Notice of Entry of Order.

 

  • Defendant shall pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.00 within 20 days after service of Notice of Entry of Order.

 

  • Moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Courtís ruling for the Courtís 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 530249†††††† PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. VS. SEAN

††††††††††††††††† HUDSON, ET AL.

 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA†††† LANCE BAYER

SEAN HUDSON†††††††††††††††††††††††††† PHILIP L. GREGORY

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE ALLEGATIONS FROM THE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SEAN HUDSON BY CITY OF SAN MATEO

 

 

 

         Cross-defendantsí having filed a Notice of Appeal of Order Denying Special Motion to Strike Cross-complaint, these matters are ordered off calendar.

 

 

 

DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT BY CITY OF SAN MATEO

 

 

         See above.

 

 

DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT STEPHEN SCOTT, ET AL.

 

 

         See above.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 531884†††††† TAMY RHODES, ET AL VS. EQR- WOODLAND PARK, ET AL

 

 

TAMY RHODES†††††††††††††††††††††††††† MICHAEL E. ADAMS

EQR-WOODLAND PARK B LIMITED PA††††††† AARON T WINN

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY EQR-WOODLAND PARK B LIMITED PARTNERHSIP

 

 

         Continued to August 7, 2015 at 9:00a.m. Dept. LM by stipulation.

 

 

DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of RHODES BY EQR-WOODLAND PARK B LIMITED PARTNERHSIP

 

 

         Continued to August 7, 2015 at 9:00a.m. Dept. LM by stipulation.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CLJ 210329†††††† DEUTSCHE BANK VS NAN HUI CHEN

 

 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST C††††††† HADI RAUL SEYED-ALI

NAN HUI CHEN††††††††††††††††††††††††† JOSEPH L DE CLUE

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE NON-PARTY VERIFICATION TO COMPLAINT BY NAN HUI CHEN

 

 

  • Defendantís motion to strike non-party verification to complaint is DENIED. [CCP ß446(a);Newman v. Bird (1882) 60 Cal. 372; H.G. Bittleston Law & Collection Agency v. Howard (1916) 172 Cal. 357].

 

  • Moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Courtís ruling for the Courtís 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.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:01

5

CLJ 209920 †† †††BASILIA FATICA, TRUSTEE VS. RAMONA LOW

 

 

BASILIA FATICA, TRUSTEE†††††††††††††† ANDRES M. SANCHEZ

RAMONA LOW††††††††††††††††††††††† †††† STEVEN L. POLLAK

 

 

MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE DISMISSAL AND FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION BY BASILIA FATICA, TRUSTEE OF THEELMO FATICA

  • Appear.This case was continued from July 21, 2015 at the request of Defendant Low to allow her attorney to appear. The Court puts the parties on notice that the tentative ruling has not changed.It is as follows:The unopposed Motion for an Order Vacating the Dismissal and Entering Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation by Plaintiff Basilia Fatica is GRANTED pursuant to CCP ß664.6. The written stipulation executed by the parties provides that plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment against defendants, as well as an immediate Writ of Possession if defendants failed to comply with the terms of the stipulation. The stipulation provided that defendants would vacate the subject premises on or before May 29, 2015. Defendants have not vacated the premises and are in default of the stipulation. Plaintiff is awarded a judgment for possession.

 

  • Moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Courtís ruling for the Courtís 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.

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

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 JOHN L. GRANDSAERT

Department 11

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2D

 

Friday, July 24, 2015

 

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

you must call (650) 261-5111 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 518553†††††† MWKS PERRY STREET, LLC. VS. PERRY STREET, LLC., ET AL.

 

 

MWKS PERRY STREET, LLC.†††††††††††††† CRAIG J. BASSETT

PERRY STREET, LLC.††††††††††††††††††† SHEILA GROPPER NELSON

 

 

MOTION TO ADVANCE TRIAL DATE, OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE BY KA-MAN CARMEN YUEN, ET AL.

 

 

  • Motion to Advance Trial Date or Alternatively to Continue Trial Date is DENIED.The Bankruptcy Status Review Hearing will be heard on 12/15/15 at 9:00 AM.The Courtís tentative ruling, if confirmed at the hearing of this matter, shall constitute the only notice of this ruling.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Special Set Calendar

Judge: Honorable ELIZABETH K. LEE

Department 17

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2L

 

Friday, July 24, 2015

 

IF YOU INTEND TO APPEAR ON ANY CASE ON THIS CALENDAR YOU MUST DO THE FOLLOWING:

3. YOU MUST CALL (650) 261-5117 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. TO INFORM THE COURT OF YOUR INTENT TO APPEAR.

4. 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

2:00

1

CIV 528513††††† JODI YOUNG VS. BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

 

 

JODI YOUNG††††††††††††††††††††††††††† CHARLES J. KATZ

BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT††††††††††††††† JOHN A. SHURPE

 

 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY JODI YOUNG

 

 

         Plaintiff Jodi Youngís Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Granting Summary Judgment for Defendant Burlingame School District is DENIED.

 

         In her motion for reconsideration, plaintiff has not offered any new or different facts, circumstances, or law.Nor has plaintiff offered any valid reason for not offering the evidence she seeks to court to review earlier.

 

 

         The court OVERRULES defendant Burlingame School Districtís Objections to the Declaration of Christopher Schumb. The court has reviewed and considered the statements made by Schumb in the Declaration in ruling on this motion. However, the court finds that there is nothing in the Schumb Declaration that presents any new law or new evidence for the court to consider.

 

         Prevailing party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Courtís ruling for the Courtís 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.

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:3:00 PM

 

 

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County