November 23, 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 JONATHAN E. KARESH

Department 20

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 8C

 

Monday, November 27, 2017

 

If you plan to appear on any case on this calendar,

 you must call (650) 261-5019 before 4:00 p.m. and you must give notice also before 4:00 p.m. to all parties of your intent to appear pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1308(a)(1).

 

Case                   Title / Nature of Case

9:00

Lines: 1 & 2

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

 

 

1. TRAIS FLOURS’S HEARING ON DEMURRER TO MOHAMMAD MORTAZAVI’S CROSS-COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

 

By stipulation and order the motion is continued to December 1, 2017.  The hearing will be at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.

 

 

2. TRAIS FLOURS’S MOTION TO STRIKE UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 425.16 (ANTI-SLAP STATUTE)

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

By stipulation and order the motion is continued to December 1, 2017.  The hearing will be at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.

 

 



9:00

Line: 3

16-CLJ-02577     PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. JEANENE

                   HARLICK

 

 

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC      JAIME RITTON

JEANENE HARLICK                        Pro/PER

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER THAT MATTERS IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF TRUTH OF FACTS BE ADMITTED

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion for an order that matters in request for admission of truth of facts be admitted is GRANTED.  The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters in the requests for admission are deemed admitted. 

 

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 verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 



9:00

Line: 4

17-CIV-00966     NOBUE HIRANO, et al. vs. SERENITY 4 MANAGEMENT

                   SERVICES, LLC, et al.

 

 

NOBUE HIRANO                           KATHRYN A. STEBNER

SERENITY 4 MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC     REUBEN B. JACOBSON

 

 

ST. JOHNS VOLUTEER’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion to continue the trial is ordered OFF CALENDAR as a notice of settlement of entire case was filed on November 9, 2017.

 



9:00

Line: 5

17-CIV-02699     ANDRE FAHRI, et al. vs. IRAJ ADINEH, et al.

 

 

JOLANTA FAHRI                          ELAINE R. LEE

IRAY ADINEH                            CHARLES S. BRONITSKY

 

 

DEFENDANT’S HEARING ON DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The demurring party failed to file a declaration, as required by CCP §430.41(a)(3), showing that the parties met and conferred in person or by telephone for the purpose of determining whether an agreement could be reached to resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.   The declaration of Charles Bronitsky indicates only that an email and letters were sent to plaintiff’s counsel.  Consequently, the hearing on the demurrer is CONTINUED to December 27, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department so that the parties may meet and confer in person or by telephone.  The demurring party is required to file, no later than 7 days prior to the new hearing date, a code-compliant 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 the meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.  If the parties fail to file and serve the Declaration demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Section 430.41, the Demurrer will be stricken as procedurally improper.

 

 



9:00

Line: 6

17-CIV-04916     COUNTY OF SAN MATEO SHERIFF CARLOS BOLANOS vs.

                    ROLLEN JEREMY STEELE

 

 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO SHERIFF CARLOS BOLANOS   David A. Silberman

ROLLEN JEREMY  STEELE                       PRO/PER

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL RECORDS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to Seal Records is GRANTED.  The information contained in Exhibit A is private in nature and this privacy interest constitutes an overriding interest that overcomes the public right of access and supports sealing.  The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and there is no less restrictive means to protect the privacy interest.  Absent sealing, the private information would be publicly available. 

 

 

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 verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 



9:00

Line: 7

17-CLJ-04988     WOOD ROBBINS, LLP vs. ROSENDO LOPEZ, et al.

 

 

WOOD ROBBINS, LLP                      GREGORY J. WOOD

ROSENDO LOPEZ                          PRO/PER

 

 

WOOD ROBBINS, LLP’S WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Application of Plaintiff Wood Robbins LLP for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment is ordered OFF CALENDAR because a notice of stay of proceedings was filed on November 21, 2017. 

 



9:00

Line: 8

17-UDL-00901     TW REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CO. vs. WOMEN'S STARTUP

                   LAB, INC., et al.

 

 

TW REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CO.           TODD ROTHBARD

WOMEN'S STARTUP LAB, INC.              KEVIN HERMANSEN

 

 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to Strike is GRANTED with five days leave to amend to provide a verification executed in compliance with CCP §446(a).  The statute provides that when a corporation is a party, the verification may be made by any officer thereof.  In this case, the verification is signed by an individual who is identified only as the agent for plaintiff.  While plaintiff contends that this individual is its president, that fact does not appear on the face of the complaint nor any other matter subject to judicial notice.

 

At best, plaintiff has provided a grant deed which indicates Huang is the president of TW Investment Co.  However, the plaintiff in this action is TW Real Estate Investment Co.  Plaintiff contends that TW Real Estate Investment Co was formerly known as TW Investment Co. but this fact does not appear on the face of the complaint nor, for that matter, from the grant deed. 

 

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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20. 

 

 



9:00

Line: 9

17-UDU-00934     MARIA BORUTA vs. BERNADETTE TOBIN, et al.

 

 

MARIA BORUTA                           MICHAEL BITONDO

BERNADETTE TOBIN                       EDWARD M. HIGGINBOTHAM

 

 

ERIC AND BERNADETTE TOBIN’S HEARING ON DEMURRER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The demurrer is ordered OFF CALENDAR.  This is because the Court signed an order on November 20, 2017 which vacated the demurrer without prejudice.

 

 

 



9:00

LineS: 10 & 11

CIV536879     JO ANNE THOMPSON, ET AL. VS. JPMORGAN CHASE

 

 

BRADFIELD THOMPSON                     NELSON W. GOODELL

JPMORGAN CHASE N.A.                    JOHN D. FREED

 

 

 

 

10. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’S MOTION TO STAY CASE AND VACATE PENDING DEADLINES

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter will be heard in Department 10, Hon. Gerald J. Buchwald.  Please check Judge Buchwald’s tentative ruling for further information. 

 

 

 

11. SC PROPERTIES, KEVIN CULLINANE AND MARK SCAFINE’S JOINDER TO MOTION TO STAY CASE AND VACATE PENDING DEADLINES

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter will be heard in Department 10, Hon. Gerald J. Buchwald.  Please check Judge Buchwald’s tentative ruling for further information

 

 

 



9:00

LineS: 12 & 13

CIV537451     EMMANUEL OBEL VS. PARK REAL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

 

 

EMMANUEL OBEL                          ALBERT L. BOASBERG

PARK REAL HOMEOWNERS ACCOCIATION        NINA L. HAWKINSON

 

 

12. PARK REAL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND ED EISENMAN’S MOTION TO FILE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

TENTATIVE RULING:  

 

Defendants Park Real Homeowners Association’s and Ed Eisenman’s unopposed Motion to File Under Seal is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Whether or not parties stipulate to file documents under seal, in order to do so, the Court must find that (a) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record, (b) the overriding interest supports sealing the records, (c) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed, (d) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.  CRC 2.550(d).  To be narrowly tailored, a sealing order must seal only those documents and pages that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal; all other portions of each document or page(s) must remain in the public file.  CRC 2.550(e)(1).  Here, Defendants request to file the declarations and attorneys Milanfar and Young under seal, with all their attachments.  No redacted versions were submitted.  It does not appear that these declarations, in their entirety (including all exhibits), are confidential.  As such, the request is not sufficiently narrowly tailored to support the request to seal. 

 

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, moving party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 

13. PARK REAL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND ED EISENMAN’S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE PARTIES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff Emmanuel Obel’s request that the Court consider his late-filed Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.  The Opposition was due Nov. 9, 2017, but was filed Nov. 15-16, 2017.  Under the circumstances, the request is granted.  The Court has considered the Opposition in ruling on the merits.

 

Defendants Park Real Homeowners Association’s and Ed Eisenman’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 664.6 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Sect. 664.6 permits the Court to enter Judgment pursuant to an out-of-court settlement agreement signed by both parties.  Here, the only out-of-court agreement signed by both parties is the one-page, 4-27-17 agreement that the parties signed at the conclusion of their mediation.  Although the Court may consider evidence to determine what a settlement was intended to cover, the Court cannot create the material terms of a settlement.  J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 984.  The August 1, 2017 document was not signed by both parties, and the Court cannot determine that it, in its entirety, necessarily reflects the parties’ intent when they signed the 4-27-17 agreement.  For example, while the Court agrees that Plaintiff waived his rights under Civ. Code Sect. 1542, the 4-27-17 agreement does not reference any “Defense and Indemnification.”  See Sect. C to the Aug. 1, 21017 document (“Defense and Indemnification”).  The denial of this motion is not a finding that the parties did not enter into a binding settlement on 4-27-17—only that the Court cannot conclude that the Aug. 1, 2017 document, in its entirety, necessarily reflects the parties’ intent in signing the 4-27-17 settlement agreement.  

 

It appears the parties’ disagreement over the terms of their settlement are relatively minor.  The parties may want to consider appearing at the hearing, talking and working out their differences, and simply reading a more detailed settlement into the record. 

 

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, moving party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County