February 26, 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

 

Monday, February 23, 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 515195       ANDY SABERI VS. FERRARI-MASERATI OF SILICON VALLEY,

                   INC., ET AL.

 

 

ANDY SABERI                           JAMES M. DOMBROSKI

EL CAMINO MOTORS, LLC                 RICHARD L. STUHLBARG

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY EL CAMINO MOTORS, LLC

 

 

·         Defendant El Camino Motors, LLC dba Ferrari-Maserati of Silicon Valley’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

 

·         As to the First and Third Causes of Action: Summary adjudication is DENIED.  Defendant El Camino Motors, LLC dba Ferrari-Maserati of Silicon Valley has not set forth sufficient undisputed material facts in support of the Motion to shift the burden to Plaintiff because several facts relied upon reference the other Defendant, Ferrari North America, but do not reference this Defendant.

 

·         As to the Fifth Cause of Action: Summary adjudication is DENIED.  Defendant El Camino Motors, LLC dba Ferrari-Maserati of Silicon Valley has failed to demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and thereby shift the burden to Plaintiff. Defendant has provided no evidence to foreclose the possibility of a false oral statement by defendant’s employee.  Defendant has not provided any proof of the claim that the car was repaired.

 

·         As to the Seventh Cause of Action: Summary adjudication is DENIED.  Defendant El Camino Motors, LLC dba Ferrari-Maserati of Silicon Valley has failed to demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and thereby shift the burden to Plaintiff. Defendant has not proven that it performed, or was excused from performing, all of the terms of the lease.

 

·         As to the Sixth Cause of Action: Summary adjudication is GRANTED.  Defendant El Camino Motors, LLC dba Ferrari-Maserati of Silicon Valley has demonstrated that Plaintiff has not suffered an irreparable injury and has an adequate remedy at law, therefore injunctive relief is not available.

 

·         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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

·         See below regarding rulings on evidentiary objections.

 

1. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Supporting Declarations of Defendants’ Three Motions for Summary Judgment are OVERRULED.

 

2. Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Thomas I. Saberi are OVERRULED.

 

3. Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Andy Saberi are OVERRULED.

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY FERRARI OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

 

 

·         Defendant Ferrari North America’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

 

·         As to the First Cause of Action: Summary adjudication is DENIED.  Defendant Ferrari North America has demonstrated that there is no triable issue of material fact by showing admissible evidence that Plaintiff is not aware of any false statements to support the theory of fraud by intentional misrepresentation, but has not demonstrated the same for the theory of fraud by concealment.  Because the cause of action for fraud is not completely disposed of, summary adjudication cannot be granted. [CCP § 437c(f)(1)].

 

·         As to the Third Cause of Action: Summary adjudication is GRANTED. Plaintiff did not dispute UMF no. 42, which asserts that Plaintiff has no evidence of a conspiracy between Ferrari North America or the other defendants.

 

·         As to the Fifth Cause of Action: Summary adjudication is DENIED.  Defendant Ferrari North America has not demonstrated that there is no triable issue of material fact and has therefore has not shifted the burden to Plaintiff. Defendant has provided no evidence to foreclose the possibility of a false oral statement by Defendant’s employee.  Defendant has not provided any proof of the claim that the car was repaired.

 

·         As to the Sixth Cause of Action: Summary adjudication is GRANTED.  Defendant Ferrari North America has demonstrated that Plaintiff has not suffered an irreparable injury and has an adequate remedy at law, therefore injunctive relief is not available.

 

·         As to the Seventh Cause of Action: Summary adjudication is GRANTED.  Defendant Ferrari North America has demonstrated that there is no triable issue of material fact because Ferrari North America is not a party to the motor vehicle lease with Plaintiff.

 

·         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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

·         See below regarding rulings on evidentiary objections.

1. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Supporting Declarations of Defendants’ Three Motions for Summary Judgment are OVERRULED.

 

2. Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Thomas I. Saberi are OVERRULED.

 

3. Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Andy Saberi are OVERRULED.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 523801       GUINNANE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. VS. ALLEN M. PROWS,

                   ET AL.

 

 

GUINNANE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.       MARK J. ROMEO

ALLEN M. PROWS                        JAMES PAUL GREEN

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT on complaint and SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF first amended cross complaint BY GUINNANE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. AGAINST ALLEN M. PROWS and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. st.

 

 

  • After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Guinnane Construction Co., Inc., the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

 

IT IS ORDERED that:

 

(1)    The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

 

(2)    Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Allen               M. Prows.

 

  • There is no triable issue of material fact with respect to the following matters:

 

  • Plaintiff has submitted Undisputed Material Facts which establish its cause of action for Quiet Title.

 

  • Title to the subject property was conveyed by the Trust of Ann M. Doody to Plaintiff in August 2013 (UMF Nos. 2 & 3) Allen Prows previously transferred his interest in the subject property to Ann Doody pursuant to an oral agreement with Ann Doody to buy out his interest in the property. (UMF Nos. 5 - 8) Allen Prows has not demonstrated that his oral agreement with Ann Doody included any provision that Prows would retain any interest in the property or that Ann Doody was granting him any interest in the property to secure her performance. (See Declaration of Allen Prows which fails to establish that Allen Prows had any interest in the subject property after he deeded his interest to Ann Doody in Jan. 2008.)

 

·         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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

            MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

 

 

  • The Motion for Summary Adjudication by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant as to the Declaratory Relief Cause of Action of the Amended Cross-complaint is DENIED.

 

  • The Declaratory Relief Cause of Action alleges a controversy concerning Cross-Complainant Allen Prows and credit card obligations arising from a joint credit care he had with Ann Doody. A declaration is sought to the effect that any obligations are and owing from Ann Doody and/or her Trust, through the Successor Trustee. However, no undisputed material facts are set forth in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement that address this alleged credit card obligation. Thus, the entire cause of action will not be defeated as is required. (Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c(f)(1); Hood v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 319; City of Emeryville v. Sup. Ct. (1991) 2 Cal. App. 4th 21)

 

  • Additionally, another issue in the Declaratory Relief Cause of Action is that Allen Prows’ claim for monetary relief against anyone is barred by the statute of limitations.  There is little dispute that there was an oral agreement between Ann Doody and Allen Prows that she would buy out his interest in the property via a refinance after he transferred his interest in the property to her.Allen Prows then transferred his interest in the property to Ann Doody and she obtained a line of credit against the property. The issue that this claim for money is barred by the statute of limitations must be based upon a factual determination that starts with the breach of the oral agreement. The breach of the oral agreement is based upon when Ann Doody was supposed to pay Allen Prows the money for his interest in the property. Without knowing when Ann Doody was to perform her part of the oral contract it cannot be ascertained when the claim would be time barred. This date is not established in the moving Separate Statement.

 

·         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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 524369       IVYMAX, INC.  VS. LIXIA ZHONG, ET AL.

 

 

IVYMAX, INC.                          ANDREW G. WATTERS

LIXIA ZHONG                           PETER CHAO

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT BY LIXIA ZHONG

 

 

·         GRANTED.  Moving party is granted leave to file and serve a Cross-Complaint consistent with the Proposed Cross-Complaint no later than March 13, 2015.

 

·         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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 524994       ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. SOUTH CITY AUTO

                   CENTER, INC.

 

 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY            JOHN L. HALL

SOUTH CITY AUTO CENTER INC.

 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT BY SOUTH CITY AUTO CENTER INC.

 

 

·         The motion is GRANTED.  The default is void within the meaning of CCP §473(d) as it was entered without proper proof of service of the summons and complaint.  The weight of the evidence indicates that personal service on Defendant’s agent for service of process was not accomplished.  The declaration of Kevin Lu states that he was not personally served on November 4, 2013 and this is corroborated by the declaration of Stephanie Thai who states the process server left the documents with her to give to Mr. Lu.  To the extent that a Default Judgment was entered after this Motion was filed, it is vacated for the same reason.  Defendant is directed to file its Answer, consistent with its proposed Answer, no later than March 2, 2015.

 

·         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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 526822       JOHN J. HARTFORD VS. ELIZABETH KARNAZES, ET AL.

 

 

JOHN J. HARTFORD                      ALBERT LEE

ELIZABETH KARNAZES                    PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS BY ELIZABETH KARNAZES

 

 

·         Moot.  Heard by Judge Elizabeth K. Lee on February 20, 2015.

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REQUEST DISCOVERY RESPONSES CLOSER TO TIME OF TRIAL, AND IF NECESSARY, TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL CLOSER TO DATE OF TRIAL BY ELIZABETH KARNAZES

 

 

·         Moot.  Heard by Judge Elizabeth K. Lee on February 20, 2015.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 527482       PAULA STEUER VS. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL

                   DISTRICT

 

 

PAULA STEUER                          ARTHUR R. SIEGEL

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL    JOHN A. SHUPE

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE BY PAULA STEUER

 

 

·         Appear.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 528230       OMID ABDOLLAHI VS. WATSON LAW GROUP, ET AL.

 

 

OMID ABDOLLAHI                        PRO/PER

WATSON LAW GROUP

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF OMID ABDOLLAHI'S REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES BY STEVE WATSON & ASSOCIATES PC

 

 

  • The Motion to Strike Punitive Damages by Defendant WLG is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

 

  • In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, Plaintiff must plead the specific detailed ultimate facts, not conclusory allegations or generalities, establishing that he is entitled to the relief sought. [Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255].  In establishing a claim for punitive damages, Plaintiff must show by “clear and convincing” evidence that Defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. [Civil Code § 3294(a)].

 

  • Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint until March 13, 2015.

 

  • 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of ABDOLLAHI BY STEVE WATSON & ASSOCIATES PC

 

 

  • The Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Defendant by STEVE WATSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., dba WATSON LAW GROUP (“WLG”) is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for fraud. 

 

  • The elements of fraud, which give rise to a tort action for deceit, are (1) misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to defraud; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. [Nagy v. Nagy (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1262, 1268].  A claim for fraud must be alleged with factual specificity.  [Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73].  In this case, Plaintiff’s fraud cause of action does not sufficiently plead knowledge of falsity and intent to defraud at the time the statements in question were made. 

 

  • In addition, given that Plaintiff alleges he was an independent contractor “with work assigned to you as needed by WLG depending on the firm’s needs and work flow” (FAC ¶ 12), it is unclear how the alleged misrepresentations set forth at FAC ¶ 30 constitute fraud.  “Generally, actionable misrepresentation must be one of existing fact; ‘predictions as to future events, or statements as to future action by some third party, are deemed opinions, and not actionable fraud…”  [Cohen v. S&S Construction Co. (1983) 151 Cal.App.3d 941, 946].

 

  • Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint until March 13, 2015.

 

  • 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

8

CIV 529289       CACH, LLC VS. KEVIN KUANG

 

 

CACH, LLC                             NADER SABAWI

KEVIN KUANG                           NICOLAS C. VACA

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO BY KEVIN KUANG

 

 

·         Defendant’s unopposed Motion for Supplemental Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.  Plaintiff shall serve verified further responses to the Special Interrogatories Nos. 11 – 18, without objection, within five days after service of Notice of Entry of Order.

 

·         Plaintiff shall pay Monetary Sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $660.00 within five days after service of Notice of Entry of Order.

 

·         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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

9

CIV 529347       IRIS LAI HUNG TAM VS. ENRIQUE CHAN, ET AL.

 

 

IRIS LAI HUNG TAM                     V. WINNIE TUNGPAGASIT

ENRIQUE CHAN                          JEFFREY C. TSU

 

 

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL BY V. WINNIE TUNGPAGASIT

 

 

·         DENIED without prejudice based on defective proof of service.  In addition to the client, all parties who have appeared in the case must be served with the motion and supporting papers, including the proposed order, as required by CRC Rule 3.1362(d).

 

·         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

10

CIV 531117       VICTOR M. CATANZARO, ET AL. VS. ROBERT BERMAN

 

 

VICTOR M. CATANZARO                   APRIL S. GLATT

ROBERT BERMAN

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER CHARGING JUDGMENT DEBTOR'S PARTNERSHIP INTEREST IN TBT INVESTMENTS BY VICTOR M. CATANZARO AND RIVENDELL II LTD-LP

 

 

·         Off calendar at the request of the moving party.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County