September 23, 2014
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 2M

 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2014

 

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 493125       OTTO WILLIAM GRAF, ET AL. VS. CHASE, ET AL.

 

 

OTTO WILLIAM GRAF                     KURT E. WILSON

CHASE

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO FIRST Amended COMPLAINT of GRAF

BY FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION

 

 

·         The Court has continued this matter to October 29, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion department.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

2

CIV 517277       MILA VIRINA, ET AL. VS. KEVIN PRINGLE, ET AL.

 

 

MILA VIRINA                           DAVID W. WESSEL

KEVIN PRINGLE                         LORI B. FELDMAN

 

 

JOINDER IN MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF MILA VIRINA TO SUBMIT TO INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION BY GERMAN GODINEZ DBA CAL JUMPS

 

 

·         See below.

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF MILA VIRINA TO SUBMIT TO INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEYS BORIS E. EFRON AND DAVID W. WESSEL BY KEVIN PRINGLE DBA GRANDPA KEVIN'S PUMPKIN PATCH AND JEREMY GRANT

 

 

·         Defendants Kevin Pringle dba Grandpa Kevin’s Pumpkin Patch and Jeremy Grant’s Motion for Order Requiring Plaintiff Mila Virina to Submit to an Independent Medical Examination is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2032.020(a).  The Court finds that good cause appears for the examination.  The Plaintiff is being treating for and asserting significant neurological injuries.  Her doctor’s diagnosis include cervical disc/nerve injury with bilateral radiculopathy, bilateral elbow injury with entrapment neuropathy, right distal radius fracture with probable median nerve damage, double crush syndrome and injury to cervical and ulnar nerves and the lumbar disc/nerve injury with radiculopathy.  These are significant neurological injuries.  The first examination by Defendants’ doctor, Dr. Aptekar, was by an orthopedist.  Dr. Aptekar did not perform the diagnostic tests of motor strength, coordination, sensation, balance, reflexes, gait, neck, back and extremities.  He did not perform diagnostic tests on the neurological complaints and did not render his opinion based on any such examination.  The declaration of Dr. Strassberg is specific enough as to the tests to be performed.

 

·         The Court denies Defendants’ Request for Sanctions.

 

·         Defendant German Godinez dba Cal Jumps’ Joinder in the Motion is GRANTED.

 

·         Moving parties are 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

3

CIV 521098       WELLNESS & BEAUTY, LLC VS. MAN-U-IMPORTS, INC., ET

                   AL.

 

 

WELLNESS & BEAUTY, LLC                CHARLES S. BRONITSKY

MAN-U-IMPORTS, INC.                   CHARLIE W. YU

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY

STAR INSPECTON GROUP, INC. AGAINST WELLNESS & BEAUTY, LLC

 

 

·         This matter is moot.  A Notice of Settlement was filed on August 19, 2014.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

4

CIV 527885       ILYA DRUZHNIKOV, ET AL. VS. CONNECTANDSELL, INC., ET

                   AL.

 

 

ILYA DRUZHNIKOV                       PAUL M. ZIEFF

CONNECTANDSELL, INC.                  CHRISTOPHER SARGENT

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRst Amended COMPLAINT of DRUZHNIKOV BY CONNECTANDSELL, INC., WILLIAM J. "SHAWN" MCLAREN, CHRISTOPHER BEALL, STEVEN KING AND ROGER LANG

 

 

·         Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d).  These documents will be judicially noticed to the extent of their existence.  However, the truth of the statements in these documents or their proper interpretation is not subject to judicial notice to the extent those matters are reasonably disputable by the parties.  See Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113. 

 

·         Defendants’ Demurrer is OVERRULED as to Causes of Action 1-6 and 8. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed because the claims are properly the subject of arbitration.  However, the motion to compel arbitration has been denied, thus this argument is unavailing. 

 

o   1st Cause of Action – Inspection of Books and Records:  Plaintiffs have set out sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for inspection of books and records pursuant to CCP § 430.10(e) and Cal. Corps Code §§ 1601, 1603.  The exhibits to the Amended Complaint do not controvert the allegations of the Amended Complaint.  Further, the letters Defendants requested to be judicially noticed are not properly judicially noticeable, thus they cannot controvert the allegations of the Complaint.

 

o   2nd Cause of Action – Delivery of Annual Report and Quarterly Financial Statements: Plaintiffs have set out sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for delivery of annual report and quarterly financial statements pursuant to CCP § 430.10(e) and Cal. Corps. Code § 1501.  Plaintiffs allege that no annual report has been received and that the report should have been delivered at least by May 2014 because ConnectAndSell operates on a calendar year basis.  The exhibits to the Amended Complaint merely show that the Defendants planned to send the annual report, but did not show that the annual report was actually provided to anyone.

 

o   3rd Cause of Action – Removal of McLaren as Director: Plaintiffs have set out sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for removal of McLaren as director pursuant to CCP § 430.10(e) and Cal. Corps. Code § 304.  Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cite to the incorrect statutory authority (Corps Code § 162) such that this cause of action must be dismissed.  However, any valid cause of action overcomes a demurrer.  Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39. 

 

o   4th Cause of Action – Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Plaintiffs have set out sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty pursuant to CCP § 430.10(e).  Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to rebut the presumption of the business judgment rule.  Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1045-46.  However, Plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to rebut the business judgment rule, specifically that the individual defendants had a conflict of interest.  Defendants also argue that breach of fiduciary duty is a derivative claim under Delaware law.  Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty as a direct claim, but also argue in their Opposition that they have fulfilled the requirements for a derivative claim.  However, the Complaint does state sufficient facts for a derivative cause of action.  Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System v. Martin (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 924, 934; Aronson v. Lewis (Del. 1984) 473 A.2d 805, 814 (overruled on other grounds).  Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to raise a reasonable doubt that the directors were disinterested and independent and that the removal of Schmidt as CEO was the product of a valid exercise of business judgment.  Defendants also argue that this cause of action is barred because of the litigation privilege.  However, Plaintiffs’ allegations supporting breach of fiduciary duty do not only relate to Defendants’ alleged frivolous litigation.  Any allegations to which Defendants claim the litigation privilege would more properly be the subject of a motion to strike.  Even removing any allegations that could possibly be subject to the litigation privilege, Plaintiffs still state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.

 

o   5th Cause of Action – Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Plaintiffs have set out sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty pursuant to CCP § 430.10(e).  Defendants argue that this cause of action is barred by the business judgment rule, the rules governing derivative actions and the litigation privilege.  For the reasons set forth under the 4th Cause of Action, those arguments are rejected.  Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to show that the other individual defendants aided and abetted McLaren’s conduct.  “[L]iability for aiding and abetting depends on proof the defendant had actual knowledge of the specific primary wrong the defendant substantially assisted.”  Casey v. U.S. Bank National Assn (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1145.  Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that the other individual directors were aware of McLaren’s actions and approved those actions.  The other individual defendants substantially assisted with McLaren’s actions by voting to accept Schmidt’s resignation without the requisite quorum.  Thus, Defendants’ Demurrer to this cause of action should be overruled. 

 

o   6th Cause of Action – Corporate Waste: Plaintiffs have set out sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for corporate waste pursuant to CCP § 430.10(e).  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have made obligations to pay two CEO salaries simply to remove Schmidt, hired another law firm for no reason and caused two equity partners to convert their equity into debt.  This is a sufficient showing of corporate waste.  Defendants argue that this cause of action is barred by the business judgment rule, the rules governing derivative actions and the litigation privilege.  For the reasons set forth under the 4th Cause of Action, those arguments are rejected. 

 

o   8th Cause of Action – Accounting: Plaintiffs have set out sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for accounting pursuant to CCP § 430.10(e).  Defendants’ only argument is that this cause of action is dependent on the other causes of action so it must be dismissed as well.  However, Defendants’ demurrer to the underlying causes of action is overruled, thus the demurrer to this cause of action is overruled as well.

 

·         Defendants’ Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 7th Cause of Action for appointment of a receiver.  Given the drastic nature of this remedy, Plaintiffs have failed to set out sufficient facts to show that ConnectAndSell is in danger of insolvency or that they otherwise qualify for any of the cases outlined in CCP § 564.  CCP § 564; City & County of San Francisco v. Daley (1983) 16 Cal.App.4th 734, 745.

 

·         Demurring parties are 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.

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF DRUZHNIKOV BY CONNECTANDSELL, INC., WILLIAM J. "SHAWN" MCLAREN, CHRISTOPHER BEALL, STEVEN KING AND ROGER LANG

 

 

·         Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED pursuant to CCP § 436(b).  Plaintiffs were not under an obligation to file the causes of action alleged here as a cross-complaint in the related case (CIV526378).  The Complaint in this case was filed and served on ConnectAndSell prior to the Complaint being served on Druzhnikov in the related case (CIV526378) and prior to any answer being filed.  CCP § 426.30.  Further, Plaintiff Stoica is under no obligation to file cross-claims in the related cause of action, and Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint makes allegations against the individual members of the board of directors.  See Banerian v. O’Malley (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 604.  The Court also sees no evidence that would support a finding that Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint simply to harass Defendants.  CCP § 127.8.

 

·         Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Amended Complaint is also DENIED.  The portions sought to be stricken are not “irrelevant, false, or improper” matters.  CCP § 436(a).  Where conclusory allegations are supported by fact, they will not be stricken.  See Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.  Plaintiffs’ argument that the objections made in the Motion to Strike are more properly made at trial is persuasive.  To the extent Defendants argue that these portions are argumentative, prejudicial or improper characterizations, Defendants can make those objections at trial.

 

·         Moving parties are 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.

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION BY MICHAEL KAY

 

 

Michael Kay’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED.  The Intervenor has demonstrated he has a direct and immediate interest in this litigation; the intervention will not cause the issues to be enlarged and the Intervenor stands to gain or lose by direct operation of the judgment.

 

·         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.

 

 

PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND FOR STAY OF ACTION BY DEFENDANT, WILLIAM “SHAWN” MCCLAREN

 

 

·         Defendant William “Shawn” McClaren’s Petition to Compel Arbitration is DENIED and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2(c), the parties to this action are ordered to continue with this litigation.

 

·         The current state of the moving papers does not support a petition or motion to compel arbitration.  The action now includes three Defendants who did not sign the Voting Agreement and will not be compelled to arbitrate.  There is a possibility of conflicting rulings if this matter was split between arbitration and trial; and the individual defendants are alleged to have acted in concert with respect to ConnectAndSell.

 

·         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

5

CIV 528115       PETER LAU, ET AL. VS. MILLBRAE PARADISE OWNERS

                   ASSOCIATION

 

 

PETER LAU                             ANN RANKIN

MILLBRAE PARADISE OWNERS ASSOCIATION  MICHAEL B. ALLEN

 

 

MOTION FOR RECOVERY OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS BY MILLBRAE PARADISE OWNERS ASSOCIATION

 

 

·         This matter is being continued so that the parties may calendar this matter before Judge George A. Miram in Department 28.  Judge Miram heard the underlying Petition to Appoint a Receiver and the Motion for Recovery of Attorney’s Fees and Costs should be heard by him. Moving part is directed to contact Department 28 at (650) 261-5128 to put this matter on their calendar.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

6

CIV 529783       RONALD BODE VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

 

 

RONALD BODE                           STEVE B. MIKHOV

FORD MOTOR COMPANY                    LINDA L. NUSSER

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE THE IMPLIED WARRANTY CLAIMS IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY

 

 

·         Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY’s Motion to Strike the Implied Warranty Claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

 

·         Civil Code § 1791.1(c) provides that the duration of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness is “no less than sixty days nor more than one year following the sale of new consumer goods to a retail buyer”.  The applicable statute of limitations to a breach of implied warranty claim is four years pursuant to Commercial Code § 2725.  As Plaintiff alleges, he purchased his vehicle on August 30, 2008, the duration of the implied warranty extended to August 30, 2009 and Plaintiff was required to file an action to preserve these claims no later than Agusut 30, 2013.  Atkinson v. Elk Corp. of Texas (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 212.  There are no allegations contained in the Complaint as to why the statute of limitations should be tolled; thus, on the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s implied warranty claim under the Song-Beverly Act fails. 

 

·         If Plaintiff’s claim for breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act fails, the claim under the federal Magnuson-Moss Act necessary fails as well.  The Magnuson-Moss Act calls for the application of state written and implied warranty law, not the creation of additional federal law.  See Barbino v. Dan Gamel, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2006) U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50722, at 12; Atkinson, supra at 212.

 

·         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

7

CLJ 206568       U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS. ROWEN MADAMBA, ET

                   AL.

 

 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION        MICHAEL M. BAKER

ROWEN MADAMBA                         MARK W. LAPHAM

 

 

MOTION TO DISMISS BY LILIA MADAMBA

 

 

·         The Court declines to rule on the Motion to Dismiss brought by Defendant Lilia Madamba as this case was removed to Federal District Court on June 25, 2014.  As of September 18, 2014, there has been no remand of this action back to the San Mateo County Superior Court. If Plaintiff’s counsel can show that the matter has been remanded, the Court will consider ruling on the motion.

 

·         The Court also notes that Defendant Rowen Madamba’s default was entered on December 4, 2012 and has never been set aside.  Because he is in default, he has no standing to bring a Motion to Dismiss. And because Lilia Madamba is not an attorney, she could not make this motion on behalf of her husband in any event.  She can only make the motion in pro per on her own behalf.

 

·         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

8

CLJ 528082       YASUHITO BRANDON OSHIMA VS. JACKIE MCDUFF/OSHIMA, ET

                   AL.

 

 

YASUHITO BRANDON OSHIMA               PRO/PER

JACKIE MCDUFF OSHIMA                  KATHRYN IRENE PHILLIPS

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRst Amended COMPLAINT of OSHIMA BY JACKIE MCDUFF OSHIMA, MITSUHARU OSHIMA AND KATHRYN IRENE PHILLIPS

 

 

·         Defendants’ unopposed Demurrers as set forth in their Demurrer (all 18 Items, both numbered and unnumbered causes of action) are SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND because they fail to state sufficient facts to constitute  a cause of action (Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e)).  Even though it would be applicable, Defendants are precluded from asserting special demurrers pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 92(c).

 

·         Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to obtain legal counsel to assist him in drafting his amended pleading.  Plaintiff is instructed that he must comply with the California Rules of Court including, but not limited to, Rules 2.109 and 2.112.  Plaintiff is further instructed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10(a)(1).

 

·         Plaintiff shall filed and serve his Second Amended Complaint on or before October 20, 2014.

 

·         Defendants’ Request for Costs is DENIED.

 

·         Demurring parties are 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.

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PUNTIVE DAMAGES FROM PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY JACKIE MCDUFF OSHIMA, MITSUHARU OSHIMA AND KATHRYN IRENE PHILLIPS

 

 

·         Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from the First Amended Complaint is granted.  California Code of Civil Procedure § 3294 specifically limits punitive damages to actions which are not contract causes of action.  The requests for punitive damages contained in the First Amended Complaint on pages 46 through 50 are here by stricken.

 

·         In addition, Plaintiff has not pled punitive damages in every one of his tort causes of action.  As such, a prayer containing a request for punitive damages is improper and any of these requests are stricken.

 

·         Moving parties are 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

CLJ 530068       HOI CHOW, ET AL. VS. YWUM ENTERPRISE, INC.

 

 

HOI CHOW                              MICHAEL E. ZARATE

YWUM ENTERPRISE, INC.

 

 

PETITION FOR RELEASE OF MECHANIC'S LIEN AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES BY HOI CHOW AND KENT CHOW

 

 

·         Petitioners’ unopposed Petition to Release Mechanic’s Lien is GRANTED. Petitioners have established by a preponderance of the evidence that they have complied with the requirements of Civil Code § 8480, et seq. Respondent has recorded a mechanic’s lien against Petitioners’ property.  Respondent did not initiate a foreclosure proceeding within 90 days after recordation of the mechanic’s lien.  Petitioners demanded that Respondent release the mechanic’s lien.  Respondent failed or refused to release the mechanic’s lien.  Petitioners filed a Petition to Release Mechanic’s Lien, Notice of Hearing and supporting papers.  Petitioners served Respondent with copies of the Petition, Notice of Hearing and supporting papers as required by law.  Respondent did not file any opposition to the Petition. 

 

·         Petitioners’ Request for Attorney’s Fees in the amount of $4,421 is GRANTED pursuant to Civil Code § 8488.  The declaration of Petitioners’ counsel establishes the amount of time spent in preparing the Petition and Notice of Hearing on the Petition to Release Mechanic’s Lien.  The time spent is reasonable.  The attorney’s fees charged on an hourly basis are reasonable and appropriate given the complexity of this case.

 

·         The moving parties are directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Court's tentative ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to CRC 3.1312, and provide notice thereof to all counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  A copy of the order is to be delivered directly to Judge Elizabeth K. Lee in Department 17.

 


 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:20 PM

© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County