January 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 RICHARD H. DuBOIS

Department 16

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 7A

 

Monday, January 23, 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

CIV528821     ABRAHAM J. SEVILLA, ET AL. VS. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.

 

 

ABRAHAM J. SEVILLA                    FRANCOIS X. SORBA

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A              DAVID A. OWENS

 

 

Motion FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.  Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(c).  Specifically, while Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ represented gross monthly income was $6,542.00 but that Defendants arrived at an actual gross monthly income of $12,937.04, those calculations are nowhere set forth in the Declaration of Jennifer Childress.  Defendants have failed to set forth “plainly and concisely all material facts” that they contend are undisputed, with specific reference to the supporting evidence.  Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(b)(1).  Accordingly, the motion is denied.

 

In all future pleadings, Defendants’ counsel Bryan Cave LLP is ordered to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(f) (requiring hard tabs between exhibits).  Counsel’s failure to comply with this rule imposes a significant inconvenience on the Court in considering and ruling on motions.

 

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

Line: 2

CIV530719     SP CONTROLS, INC. VS. WESTERN GEOLOGIC LLC

 

 

930 LINDEN AVENUE, LLC                CATHERINE W. JOHNSON

WESTERN GEOLOGIC, LLC                 CHRISTINE J. GRACCO

 

 

MOTION FOR BIFURCATION

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is dropped from calendar at the request of the moving party.

 



9:00

Line: 3

CIV532383     JEFFREY EDRALIN VS. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ET AL.

 

 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO                   GLENN M. LEVY

JEFFREY EDRALIN                       MICHAEL E. ADAMS

 

 

MOTION for DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN RECORDS OF CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AGAINST DEFENDANT GREGORY EATMON

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion is granted.  The declaration of Michael Adams establishes good cause for disclosure.  The court will conduct an in camera review of the requested records.  

 



9:00

Line: 4

CIV533696     SAARMAN CONSTRUCTION, ET AL. VS. 4 CORNERS CONSTRUCTION

                  MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

 

 

 

SAARMAN CONSTRUCTION LTD              PAUL B. LAHADERNE

4 CORNERS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. ERROL ZSHORNACK

 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion brought by defendant Juanito Villamil to set aside default is DENIED.

 

"The return of a process server registered pursuant to... the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return." (Evid. Code § 647.) Defendant fails to rebut the presumption that service occurred. Defendant’s motion contends that he never received the summons or complaint, but he does not contend that the matters set forth in the Proof of Service are untrue. Defendant admits that the address where service occurred was his place of employment, and he does not contend that he was absent on the date of service. At most, Defendant speculates that he might have misplaced the papers that were served on him. (Declaration of Villamil in Support of Reply, paragraph 7.) Defendant’s contention that he becomes busy at work is insufficient to establish excusable neglect. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (b); Huh v. Wang (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1424.)

 

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

Line: 5

CIV536872     KENNEDY CHARLES VS. COSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBERSHIP INC.

 

 

KENNEDY CHARLES                       ELIZABETH F. MCDONALD

COSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBERSHIP, INC.     THOMAS C. CROSBY

 

 

MOTION TO TERMINATE SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is CONTINUED for 45 days, to March 9, 2017 at 9:00 am in the Law & Motion Department. The parties are not required to submit additional briefing prior to the March hearing, except that defendant shall inform the court whether verified answers to the outstanding discovery requests have been received.  If not, the intention of the court would be to grant the terminating sanction.

 

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

Line: 6

CIV537576     VANESSA EDMONDSON VS. CITY OF PACIFICA

 

 

VANESSA EDMONDSON                     MICHAEL R. SOLOMON

CITY OF PACIFICA                      GREGG A. THORNTON

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is dropped from calendar as a request for dismissal is on file.

 

 



9:00

Line: 7

CIV537812     MESROP KHACHTRAIAN VS. MICHAEL CRAUSE

 

 

MESROP KHACHATRIAN                    MARY DER-PARSEGHIAN

MICHAEL CRAUSE                        ALBERT K. MARTIN

 

 

DEMURRER TO AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Demurrer of Cross-Defendants Mesrop Khachatrian and Alvina Melikian (“Cross-Defendants”) to the First Amended Cross-Complaint of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Michael Krause (“Cross-Complainant”), is CONTINUED to February 14, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department. 

 

Cross-Defendants’ counsel failed to file a declaration establishing compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, which requires an attempt to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached to resolve the objections raised in the Demurrer.  Further, even if the court were to consider the unauthenticated December 19, 2016 letter attached to Cross-Defendants’ moving papers as evidence, this letter is insufficient to establish compliance with this meet and confer requirement which requires meeting and conferring in-person or by telephone.  (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a).)  The letter also does not address the 5th, 6th, and 7th causes of action to which Cross-Defendants also demur. 

 

Thus, Cross-Defendants shall file, no later than 7 days prior to the new hearing date, a declaration stating either (1) the parties have met and conferred and (a) the parties have resolved the objections raised in the Demurrer, which shall be taken off calendar or (b) the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the Demurrer or (2) the party who filed the pleading subject to Demurrer failed to respond to a meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith, which included an attempt to speak with the party who filed the pleading either in-person or by telephone. If Cross-Defendants fail to file and serve the requested declaration demonstrating compliance with section 430.41, the Demurrer may be stricken as procedurally improper.

 

Cross-Defendants’ counsel should be well aware of this requirement under section 430.41.  The court’s August 25, 2016 and October 11, 2016 orders addressed Cross-Defendants’ failure to comply with section 430.41 as the basis for continuing and then striking Cross-Defendants’ Demurrer to the original Cross-Complaint.  This failure once again to comply with section 430.41, combined with Cross-Defendants’ failure to file a Demurrer with their moving papers, and failure to raise any specific arguments in support of its Demurrer to the claims for judicial foreclosure and financial elder abuse, suggest to the court that Cross-Defendants may be presenting this Demurrer for an improper purpose.  (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 128.7(b).)  In the future, the court is inclined to consider sanctions under section 128.7 if Cross-Defendants continue to fail to comply with section 430.41.

 

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

LineS: 8 - 9

CIV538043     HENRY LIEU, ET AL. VS. HARDY MARULI, ET AL.

 

 

HENRY LIEU                            STEVEN ROOD

HARDY MARULI

 

 

8. DEMURRE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion is MOOT.  Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

 

 

9. MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion is MOOT.  Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

 

 



9:00

Line: 10

CIV538838     SHEILA N. YLLERA VS. SHEIK 1, ALI, ET AL.

 

 

SHIELA NICOLE YLLERA                  MARK S. ALGORRI

SHIEK I. ALI                          ROBERT L. REISINGE, ESQ

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Infinity Insurance Company’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §387(a).

 

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

Line: 11

CIV538980     DONALD RINK VS. UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

 

 

RINK, DONALD                          JOHN F. HYLAND

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.                 MICHELE HAYDEL GEHRKE

 

 

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Counsel John Hyland, of Rukin, Hyland, Doria & Tindall, LLP’s motion to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Donald Rink is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §284(2) and CRC Rule 3.1362.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 

 



9:01

Line: 12

16-CIV-00617     MTC FINANCIAL INC. vs. 811 SKYLINE DRIVE, DALY CITY

                    CA 94015

 

 

MTC FINANCIAL INC.                    JONATHAN J. DAMEN

811 SKYLINE DRIVE, DALY CITY CA 94015

 

 

CLAIMS RECEIVED TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is continued for a Case Management Conference to February 16, 2017 at 2 p.m. in Department 28.  The claimants are requested to appear, either in-person or by court call, prepared to discuss their respective claims to the surplus funds from the foreclosure sale.

 

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.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County