March 28, 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 ELIZABETH K. LEE

Department 17

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2L

 

Monday, March 30, 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 477401       DAVID STONE VS. JAN-PRO INTERNATIONAL, INC.

 

 

DAVID STONE                              ALBERT M. KUN

JAN-PRO INTERNATIONAL, INC.

 

 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO AMEND JUDGMENT CCP 187 BY DAVID STONE

 

 

  • Fulton Connor's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

 

  • Plaintiff/judgment creditor's Motion for an Order to Amend the Judgment is DENIED.  Plaintiff failed to present evidence showing that (1) Fulton Connor is the alter ego of Jan-Pro International, Inc. or (2) Fulton Connor controlled the defense of the litigation.

 

  • Both parties rely upon Toho-Towa Co. v. Morgan Creek Prods., Inc. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 1096, 1106, where the court explained: “’The ability under section 187 to amend a judgment to add a defendant, thereby imposing liability on the new defendant without trial, requires both (1) that the new party be the alter ego of the old party and (2) that the new party had controlled the litigation, thereby having had the opportunity to litigate, in order to satisfy due process concerns.’”

 

  • In order to add Connor as an additional judgment debtor, plaintiff must first show that Connor is the alter ego of Jan-Pro International, Inc.  Plaintiff David Stone declares that Fulton Connor is the president of "Jan-Pro", which is a franchise operation, that "Jan Pro" was the franchisor and that he was the franchisee.  Mr. Stone declares he personally dealt with Connor, who assigned him various jobs to be done and he was paid for services with a check drawn on the Jacksonville, Florida branch of Bank of America.  He declares "Jan-Pro" has several offices across the country.  He is informed/believes Fulton Connor was served in this action.  His attorney requested an order of examination of Fulton Connor and, although Fulton Connor was personally served, he failed to show up.  Fulton Connor is a resident of Santa Clara County.  Fulton Connor made all binding decisions for "Jan Pro" and is the president of the company.  Mr. Stone attached a copy of the check made out to him on a Jacksonville, Florida Bank of America account for "Connor-Nolan, Inc. dba Jan-Pro of Silicon Valley".

 

  • None of the statements in Mr. Stone's declaration show that Fulton Connor is the alter ego of (or was even involved with) Jan-Pro International, Inc.  At most, Mr. Stone has shown that Connor was somehow involved with an entity Stone refers to as "Jan-Pro" and that Connor was most likely involved with an entity called "Connor-Nolan, Inc. dba Jan-Pro of Silicon Valley".  Mr. Stone has not shown that either the "Jan-Pro" or "Connor-Nolan, Inc. dba Jan-Pro of Silicon Valley" entities are the same as Jan-Pro International, Inc., the entity against whom he has a judgment. 

 

  • Nor has plaintiff met the 2nd prong of showing that Connor controlled the litigation. “[T]he judgment can be made individually binding on a person associated with the corporation only if the individual to be charged, personally or through a representative, had control of the litigation and occasion to conduct it with a diligence corresponding to the risk of personal liability that was involved.” NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 772, 778-79.

 

  • Here, Connor was not named as a defendant.  The claims in the complaint were solely against Jan-Pro International, Inc.  Thus, although Connor was aware of the action (because he had been served with a copy of the summons/complaint) he was under no duty to appear/defend personally in the action since no claims have been made against him personally.  As default was entered against Jan-Pro International, Inc., there was no defense for Connor to control.

 

  • Connor has requested sanctions of $4,310 pursuant to CCP §128.5(a), which provides: “A trial court may order a party, the party's attorney, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by another party as a result of bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.”  Actions or tactics include the making of motions. CCP §128.5(b)(1)  “’Frivolous’ means totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” CCP §128.5(b)(2).  Connor argues this motion is frivolous as plaintiff has not submitted any evidence showing alter ego or that he participated in the defense of the action.

 

  • CCP §128.5(c) states that expenses pursuant to this section shall not be imposed except on notice contained in a party's moving or responding papers.  This would seem to imply that a party can give notice in its opposition.  However, CCP §128.5(f) states that any sanctions imposed pursuant to this section shall be imposed consistently with the standards conditions and procedures set forth in §128.7(c),(d) and (h).  CCP §128.7(c)(1) provides for "safe harbor" period procedure in which notice of the motion shall be served, but not filed with the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion the contention, allegation or denial is not withdrawn or properly corrected.  The only way in which the language in these 2 sections can be reconciled would be if the party seeking sanctions in its opposition obtained a continuance of the hearing so that it could serve but not file the opposition for the required 21 day safe harbor period.  Connor has not done so.

 

  • Fulton Connor's Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

 

  • Fulton Connor’s objections to Plaintiff’s Evidence in Support of David Stone’s Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Amend Judgment are sustained.  The Court is sustaining the objections to Exhibit A and Exhibit B on the grounds that it was proffered for the first time in Plaintiff’s Reply.

 

  • 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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

 

__________________________________________________________________


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

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY T. PETER THOMAS

 

 

·         On March 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed an ex-parte motion to continue this hearing over the objection of Defendant. The court has granted the ex-parte motion. The hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is continued to April 17th at 2:00 p.m. in Department 17.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 525175       CRACE B. PANGILINAN VS. WILBERT ALVAREZ, ET AL.

 

 

GRACE B PANGILINAN                       ANANT N. PRADHAN

WILBERT ALVAREZ                          CHARNEL JAMES

 

 

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL BY CHARNEL JAMES

 

 

 

  • Counsel Charnel James’ Motion to Withdraw as counsel for Defendants Wilbert Alvarez, Ophelia Alvarez and JAI Homes is GRANTED Counsel has filed this motion using the required forms and has provided a proof of service establishing that she provided notice to both her clients and opposing counsel.

 

  • Although the right of counsel to withdraw from pending litigation is not absolute. Vann v.Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal App 3d 192, 197, the court has discretion to deny a motion to withdraw where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding. Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal App 3rd 1, 4.

 

  • The trial date is set for May 11, 2015 which is 45 days away.  Plaintiff would like counsel to stay in the case until the defendants agree to provide the discovery which has yet to be provided. Counsel for plaintiff does not explain how counsel for defendant might obtain that discovery when she has stated that she has been unable to get timely responses from her clients, her clients do not return phone calls, and she is unsure if the defendants are still in the United States.

 

  • If discovery remains outstanding in the case, plaintiff may file other appropriate motions which would mitigate any perceived injustice that results from the granting of this motion.

 

  • 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

4

CIV 528024       CALDERA PROPERTIES, LLC. ET AL. VS. MICHAEL CHALHOUB,

                  ET AL.

 

CALDERA PROPERTIES, LLC               CYNTHIA HACKLER

MICHAEL CHALHOUB                      CHARLES S. BRONITSKY

 

 

MOTION PROTECTIVE ORDER - DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AT INTERO REAL ESTATE SERVICES AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF OR PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL BY INTERO REAL ESTATE SERVICES

 

 

·         The Motion to Compel is GRANTED as to both PMK depositions.

 

·         The Complaint alleges that Defendant Chalhoub recommended Defendant Cloherty and misrepresented his licensure. The Complaint also implies that Chalhoub’s recommending Cloherty for remodel work was not an isolated event. (See FAC ¶ 19 [urging Plaintiff to use contractor “whom he had recommended to his clients and his clients had used to perform similar work” and representing that contractor does "very good work, at a very good price"].)   Further, the Complaint alleges that after Plaintiff terminated MH Construction, “Chalhoub took an active role in the remodel project,” and “assisted with contacting subcontractors, investigated the concerns and even purchased supplies to help with the remodel.” (FAC ¶ 69) The complaint alleges that this “mismanagement” (Id. ¶70) of the remodel resulted in cost overruns.

 

·         As to Intero’s potential vicarious liability, the allegations raise the question of whether Chalhoub was acting within the course and scope of employment when he made the representations and became actively involved in the remodel. The Categories of Knowledge set forth in the Notice of Deposition relate this subject matter. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) 

 

·         The “hiring, training, and evaluation of Michael Chalhoub” is relevant to the scope of his employment, because those subjects address directly what kind services Intero expected Defendant Chalhoub to provide, as well as matters into which Intero possibly expected him not to become involved. “The supervision and control of Michael Chalhoub and his activities conducted on behalf of Intero Real Estate Services, Inc.” is relevant to the subject matter and material issue of the scope of employment for the same reasons.

 

·         Although the motion is granted, Defendants have not waived the right to object to specific questions at deposition that call for private information of an employee.

 

·         The Court DENIES both parties’ requests for sanctions.

 

·         Defendant shall produce its person or persons most knowledgeable for deposition pursuant to the Notice of Deposition served February 10,2 015, at a date and time no later than April 17, 2015, unless the parties agree to a later date.

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall 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 written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 528455       ROBERT CROSBY VS. MENLO CIRCUS CLUB, ET AL.

 

 

ROBERT CROSBY                         YOSEF PERETZ

MENLO CIRCUS CLUB                     TIMOTHY C. DAVIS

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY MENLO CIRCUS CLUB, ET AL.

 

 

·         Due to the extraordinarily large volume of materials submitted in support and in opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication, the court is continuing the matter in order to complete its review of the motion.  The motion is continued to April 10, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 528701       BENJAMIN PUENTES VS. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC.,

                   ET AL.

 

BENJAMIN PUENTES                      JAMIE EDWARDS QUADRA

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.          KENNETH A FRANKLIN

 

 

APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN FAVOR OF WEKKS FARGO, N.A. PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV CODE 473B

 

 

  • Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment is GRANTED.  Plaintiff shall file the proposed opposition to Wells Fargo's demurrer by April 1, 2015.  The hearing on the demurrer is set for April 30, 2015 at 9:00 AM in the Law and Motion Department.  Wells Fargo is awarded fees and costs of $960 pursuant to CCP §473(b).

 

  • 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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 530260       RICARDO A. MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS. THE CITY OF SAN

                   CARLOS, ET AL.

 

 

RICARDO A MARTINEZ                    PRO/PER

THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS                GREGORY J. RUBENS

 

 

DEMURRER TO PETITIONERS SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND IMMEDIATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENIROMENTAL QUALITY ACT, THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT AND OTHER LAWS BY THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS, ET AL.  

 

 

  • Respondents, City of San Carlos, Ron Collins, Bob Grassilli, Cameron Johnson, Mark Olbert and Matt Grocott’s Demurrer to Petitioners’ Second Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate for Declaratory Relief and Immediate Injunctive Relief Under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Ralph M. Brown Act and Other Laws is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

 

  • The Court notes that Petitioners did not file an opposition to this Demurrer.  There is a proof of service in the court file showing Respondents served the Demurrer on Petitioners. 

 

  • Demurring 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

8

CIV 531856       STEPHEN D. BARD VS. MICHAEL T. MOE, ET AL.

 

 

STEPHEN D. BARD                       JOSEPH W. COTCHETT

MICHAEL T. MOE

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OR STAY PROCEEDINGS BY MICHAEL T MOE, MARK W. FLYNN

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS OR ALTERNATIVELY, STAY PROCEEDINGS BY MARK D. KLEIN

 

 

·         The Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings brought by Defendants Moe and Flynn and the Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or Alternatively Stay Proceedings by Defendant Klein are GRANTED. 

 

·         Plaintiff Baird is ordered to submit all claims contained in the complaint filed in this action to JAMS arbitration pursuant to Paragraph 9.10 of the GSV Asset Management, LLC Operating Agreement.

 

·         There is no dispute that both Plaintiff Baird and Defendant Moe are parties to the GSV Asset Management Operating Agreement and the arbitration clause therein, and that the clause obligates them to arbitrate “any dispute relating to this Agreement.” The primary claims against Defendant Moe is that he breached a fiduciary duty by taking more than the share of profits that he was entitled to under the terms of the Operating Agreement and that he engaged in inappropriate activities that competed against GSV Asset Management, claims that appear to be controlled by Paragraph 4.5 of the Operating Agreement.  Whether or not Defendant Moe breached a fiduciary duty or engaged in fraud will depend on whether violated the terms of the Operating Agreement. 

 

·         While neither Defendant Klien or Defendant Flynn are parties to the Operating Agreement, the claims that Defendants Klien and Flynn aided and abetted or conspired with Moe to engage in inappropriate conduct will also depend on whether such conduct by Moe violated the terms of the Operating Agreement.  As such, Plaintiff’s claim appears to be intimately founded and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.

 

·         This matter is ordered STAYED until JAMS Arbitration is completed.

 

  • Moving parties 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 531932       TERRALINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC. VS. PARSONS TRANSPORT

                   GROUP, ET AL.

 

 

TERRALINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.        MARJAN HAJIMIRZAEE

PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP,         CANDACE L MATSON

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC., ET AL

 

 

·         Defendants’ Demurrer to the fourth cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Terralink argues that the alleged misrepresentation was Parsons’s statement that Terralink would be paid on a pricing matrix based on time and materials, rather than on a fixed price. (Oppos. at 4:24-25 and 5:7-20.)  The only allegation fitting that description is in paragraph 17. The allegation in paragraph 23 that Defendant “engaged in repeated efforts to ensure that Terralink believed that it would be paid based on materials and- quantities” fails to describe a false statement. The Court discerns no other statements that Plaintiff contends are the basis of fraud.

 

·         The complaint fails to state a cause of action for fraud for two reasons. First, the alleged representation “that the subcontract would be driven by a pricing matrix, based upon materials and quantities” (FAC ¶ 17) is not a statement of fact that can be proven true or false at the time it was made. “Driven by” has no clear meaning, and “would be” suggests a future event. Predictions of future events are generally not actionable. To the extent that Plaintiff’s claim is based on the theory of actionable false promise of future performance, the complaint fails to allege that Defendant possessed no present intention not to perform the promise.

 

·         Second, the complaint fails to allege fraud with the level of specificity that is required when the defendant is a corporation. When alleged against a corporation, the Complaint must state the names of the persons who made the misrepresentations, their authority to speak for the corporation, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.) The complaint fails to allege any of these facts.

 

·         Plaintiff is granted leave of court until April 13, 2015, to file and serve an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies of only the fourth cause of action, as set forth above.

 

·         Demurring 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 210777       NANO MALDONADO VS. RINA CABRERA MORAN

 

 

NANO MALDONADO                        DENNIS ZELL

RINA CABRERA MORAN

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT BY RINA CABRERA MORAN

 

 

  • Defendant Rina Moran’s Motion to Strike the Complaint is MOOT.  The Defendant’s default and a Default Judgment for Possession were entered by the Clerk’s Office on March 10, 2015. When a defendant is in default, they have no right to participate in the proceedings until its default is set aside. Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal App 3d 381, 385-86.

 

·         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

11

CLJ 210887       KEVIN A. GLEASON VS. BRANDI VANDOLAN

 

 

KEVIN A GLEASON                       PRO/PER

BRANDI VANDOLAN

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER SUMMONS BY BRANDI VANDOLAN

 

 

·         Defendant Brandi VanDolan’s unopposed Motion to Quash is GRANTED  based upon plaintiff’s failure to provide a Notice to Pay Rent or Quit in compliance with CCP §1161(2).

  • 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

12

CLJ 515573       CITIBANK, N.A. VS. NANCY YEETING

 

 

CITIBANK, N.A.                        MICHAEL S. HUNT

NANCY YEETING                         PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER THAT MATTERS IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF TRUTH OF FACTS BE ADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BY CITIBANK, N.A.

 

 

  • Plaintiff Citibank, N.A.’s Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts Be Admitted and for Monetary Sanction against Defendant Nancy Yeeting is DENIED without prejudice. 

 

  • Plaintiff has failed to provide a proof of service for the Request for Admissions, Set 1, and is therefore unable to prove service of the discovery request on 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

13

CLJ 529970       PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC. VS. VALERIE S.

                   HRONIS

 

 

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC    MICHAEL S. HUNT

VALERIE S. HRONIS                     PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDERS THAT MATTERS IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF TRUTH OF FACTS BE ADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT BY PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC.

 

 

  • Plaintiff Portfolio Recovery Associates’ Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts Be Admitted and for Monetary Sanction against Defendant Valerie S. Hronis is GRANTED and the Request for Admissions (Set 1) propounded on Defendant on December 2, 2014 are hereby deemed admitted, pursuant to C.C.P. § 2033.280(b).  Plaintiff is awarded sanctions of $332.50.

 

  • 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.

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:30 PM

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County