July 24, 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 john l. grandsaert

Department 11

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2D

 

Monday, July 24, 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

16-CIV-01923     MARY E. MOHOROVICH vs. KEVIN J. KUHLOW, et al.

 

 

MARY E. MOHOROVICH                     DAVID H.S. COMMINS

KEVIN J. KUHLOW                        NATHAN E. SMITH

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER APPOINTING A DISCOVERY REFEREE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Court has received defendant LPL Financial LLC’s request, filed July 19, 2017, that its Motion for an Order Appointing a Discovery Referee be dropped from calendar in light of the parties’ conditional settlement of this case.  Accordingly, this Motion is dropped from calendar. 

 



9:00

Line: 2

16-CIV-01931     THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC. vs. PEARLMARK HINES SAN MATEO,

                    LP, et al.

 

 

THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC.                  MICHAEL A. CORFIELD

HGP SAN MATEO OWNER LLC                HEATHER N. INGLE

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT/ANSWER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED. The proposed amendment arises from the same set of general facts already pleaded. The Motion for Leave to Amend is not untimely. Defendant offers no showing of undue prejudice that could result from the amendment. 

 

Plaintiff shall file and serve its First Amended Complaint no later than August 2, 2017.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to Cal. 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

LineS: 3 & 4

16-CIV-02957     246 ATHERTON AVENUE LLC. vs. TRAIS FLUORS LLC, et al.

 

 

246 ATHERTON AVENUE LLC                H. MICHAEL CLYDE

TRAIS FLOURS LLC                       LAWRENCE E. BUTLER

 

 

3. MOTION TO STAY

4. JOINDER TO MOTION TO STAY, ETC.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff /Cross-Defendant 246 ATHERTON AVENUE, LLC’s Renewed Motion to Stay Litigation of the Cross-Complaint, and Defendant /Cross-Defendant JAWAD KAMEL’s Joinder thereto, are CONTINUED to August 4, 2017, to be heard concurrently with Cross-Complainant TRAIS FLUORS, LLC’s Motion to Strike and Motion for Entry of Judgment.

 

Plaintiff /Cross-Defendant 246 ATHERTON AVENUE, LLC shall provide written notice of this continuance to all parties who have appeared in the action.

 



9:00

Line: 5

17-CIV-00642     MARK WUOTILA vs. VERONICA GENDRO PERTIWI, et al.

 

 

MARK WUOTILA                           Sean P. Riley

VERONICA GENDRO PERTIWI                YENNY TENG-LEE

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Veronica Pertiwi’s Motion for Leave to File a First-Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 473, 576.)  California’s judicial policy is to exercise discretion liberally to permit amendment of pleadings.  (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.)  Particularly, “[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails.”  (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564.)  Here, the Court does not find any unreasonable delay in seeking leave to amend, nor any potential prejudice sufficient to justify denying the motion.  The trial date is still nine months away.  While the Court takes no position on the merits of the proposed amendment(s), which generally is not the Court’s focus on a motion for leave to amend, the claims are related and should be resolved together for efficiency purposes.  The Court also finds Defendant has substantially complied with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a). 

 

The proposed First-Amended Cross-Complaint is not deemed filed by the granting of this Motion.  Defendant Pertiwi shall separately file and serve it no later than Aug. 4, 2017.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Defendant Pertiwi shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to Cal. 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

LineS: 6 - 8

CIV533619     MARK MIGDAL VS. BYRON CANNON

 

 

MARK MIGDAL                            RONALD J. COOK

ANTHONY HO                             CHRISTOPHER J. OLSON    

 

 

6. MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORIES, ETC.

7. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION FOR DOCUMENTS, ETC.

8. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, ETC.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Court has received Defendant Castillo’s request that this matter be dropped from calendar, in light of the fact that the case has settled.    Accordingly, these Motions to Compel is dropped from calendar.

 


 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County