May 29, 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, May 22, 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-00967     ATHERTON LANE ADVISERS, LLC. vs. LYELL WEALTH, LLC, et al.

 

 

ATHERTON LANE ADVISERS, LLC             RICHARD F. MUNZINGER

matthew berry                          noah j. hagey

 

 

motion to stay

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff Atherton Lane Advisers, LLC’s unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal of the earlier denial of defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion is GRANTED under CCP sec. 187. The Court finds that it is in the interest of judicial economy to stay the litigation on the Cross-Complaint until the appeal is decided and litigation on the primary Complaint can continue.

 

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: 2 & 3

16-CIV-01355     DAVID DEMERY vs. PROLOGIS 2, L.P., et al.

 

 

DAVID DEMERY                           DAVID S. HARRIS

panalpina, inc.                        andrew klimenko

 

 

2. hearing on demurrer to the cross-complaint of panalpina, inc.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants Prologis 2, L.P.’s and Prologis L.P.’s unopposed Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for “express indemnity” in Defendant and Cross-Complainant Panalpina, Inc.’s Cross-Complaint, filed March 10, 2017, is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.  Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 430.10(e).  The claim for express indemnity fails to state a cause of action because the Cross-Complaint does not allege a contract between these parties.  The moving papers requested that the Demurrer be sustained without leave to amend, and Panalpina filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Demurrer.  Accordingly, as to the Second Cause of Action for express indemnity, the Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. 

 

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.

 

 

3. motion to strike portions of the cross-complaint of panalpina, inc., etc

tentative ruling:

 

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Panalpina’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE should circumstance change regarding the cause of action for implied indemnity.  Attorney’s fees are recoverable where authorized by contract or statute.  Code Civ. Proc. 1033.5(a)(10).  Panalpina’s Cross-Complaint does not allege a contractual relationship between Panalpina and the moving parties, but instead seeks attorney’s fees under Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1021.6, which provides the Court with the discretion to award fees, under certain circumstances, to a party who prevails on a claim for implied indemnity.  Panalpina’s Cross-Complaint includes a claim for implied indemnity against the moving parties.  The moving parties argue the implied indemnity claim has no merit, and therefore Panalpina has no basis to request fees under Sect. 1021.6.  Despite filing a Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint, the moving parties did not challenge Panalpina’s cause of action for implied indemnity. The case cited by the moving parties, Watson v. Dept. of Transportation (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 885, where the Court held that the party (Watson) seeking fees under Sect. 1021.6 had not established a valid claim for implied indemnity, was post-trial.  Here, by not challenging the implied indemnity claim on Demurrer, the moving parties have at least tacitly conceded the Cross-Complaint states a cause of action for implied indemnity.  Accordingly, the Court will not strike the request for fees under Sect. 1021.6 at this time.  This ruling, however, is not a finding as to the merits of implied indemnity claim, which for the reasons stated in the Prologis Defendants’ present motion to strike, may ultimately have no merit.   

 

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: 4

17-CLJ-01650     CHRISTOPHER GREEN vs. KRISTA R. GREEN

 

 

CHRISTOPHER GREEN                      Juliana Nicole Williamson

krista r. green                        rachel k. leff-kich

BRTTY CHIN (MOVING PARTY)              MONICA MAZZEI

 

 

motion to quash DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF BETTY CHEN AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, ETC

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

BETTY CHIN’S motion to quash deposition subpoena is denied.

 

The documents sought by the subpoena are directly relevant to issues in the Georgia action, including issues of spousal support, property division and child custody under the laws of the state of Georgia.

 

Moving party offers only the remote possibility, but no evidence or suggestion that any requested documents would fall into the attorney-client communications privilege or work product doctrine.  If any such documents have been requested, a privilege log shall be produced in lieu of the documents.

 

The production of documents and areas for deposition shall be limited as follows:

 

     1.  The request for any and all cards…..and other correspondence or communications shall be limited to correspondence and communications between the deponent and Mr. Green.

     2.  The request for travel information and financial records shall be limited to flights between California and Georgia or when travelling to the same location as Mr. Green along with bank and other financial records for the dates of travel and time in between leaving and returning and documents reflecting the scheduling and payment for such travel.

     3.  All production and deposition questions shall be limited to the period of January 1, 2016 to present.

     4.  Any documents received or testimony at the deposition shall not be disclosed to any third party who is not involved or assisting in the marital dissolution action.

 

The opposing request for monetary sanction is granted. Moving Party Betty Chen shall pay a monetary sanction of $7,594.90 to Respondent Krista R. Green, no later than June 9, 2017.  The amount of the sanction is based upon the following, that the court deems reasonable:

 

Limited to the time for bringing this motion, 20 hours would be reasonable. The Court calculate the sanction as follows:

 

Meet/confer, file motion  20.0 hours x $350  7,000.00

Videographer (no show)                         250.00

Stenographer (no show)                         344.90

Total                                   7594.90

 

The deposition shall take place at a mutually agreed upon date within the next 14 days or at some other time as confirmed in writing between the parties.

 

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 Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 



9:00

Line: 5

CIV537530     SOPHIA ANDRITSAKIS VS. DAVID J. KAPLAN, ET AL.

 

 

SOPHIA ANDRITSAKIS                     EDIRIVERERE PATIENCE ADEYANJU

DAVID J. KAPLAN                        ARTHUR W. CURLEY

 

 

motion for leave to file first amended complaint

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Although Plaintiff has technically violated both CRC Rule 3.1324(a) and Rule 3.1324(b), the court will find the pleadings to be in substantial compliance with the rules, the defendants not prejudiced by the violations, and will move on to the substantive issues raised.

 

The Motion of Plaintiff Sophia Andritsakis (‘Plaintiff”) for Leave to File the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  Plaintiff shall file and serve her proposed First Amended Complaint by May 30, 2017.  As a term of granting this motion, Defendants are permitted to take Plaintiff’s deposition for up to a further 5 hours.

 

The court finds that Defendants’ request for a trial continuance is better left to be decided on a motion to continue the trial date given that trial is not set until December 4, 2017.  Such a motion would be brought before the Presiding Judge. 

 

To the extent that Defendants argue Plaintiff has improperly included a claim for punitive damages, the court ordinarily would not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend.  However, because Plaintiff has not complied with C.C.P 425.13 in seeking leave to request punitive damages, the court will order that the amended complaint not contain any allegations or prayer regarding punitive damages. 

 

 

 



9:00

Line: 6

CIV538492     CALCAP, INC. VS. MICHAEL DAVIS, ET AL.

 

 

CALCAP, INC                            ADAM SIEGLER

MICHAEL DAVIS                          Pro/per

 

 

motion to compel discovery responses, to deem admission requests admitted, and for sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted.  Defendant shall provide verified responses, without objection, to the interrogatories, requests for production of documents and demand for inspection of real property within 5 days.  Defendant shall allow inspection of the real property within 5 days.  The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters in the requests for admission are deemed admitted. 

 

The request for sanctions is also granted pursuant to CCP §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c) and CCP §2033.280(c).  Defendant shall pay plaintiff $1,925 on or before June 5, 2017. 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County