November 24, 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

 

NOVEMBER 24, 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 507133       IN RE: $12,600.00

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA         MEGAN WILKINS

KENNY KONG

 

 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

·         The People’s unopposed Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Answers to Interrogatories is GRANTED. 

 

·         Defendant Kenny Kong shall provide verified responses without objection to the Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. 

 

·         No sanctions are awarded.

 

·         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

2

CIV 519076       ROBERT MCNAMARA, ET AL. VS. EMBASSY SUITES

                   MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.

 

 

ROBERT MCNAMARA                       RICHARD H. SCHOENBERGER

EMBASSY SUITES MANAGEMENT, LLC        JOSEPH A. AGUILAR

 

 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF ADAM J. SINTON FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE BY EMBASSY SUITES MANAGEMENT, LLC, DJONT OPERATIONS, LLC AND FELCOR/CSS HOLDINGS, L P

 

 

·         Scott Kerew, Shawn Scott and Adam Stinton’s Applications to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant Embassy Suites Management, LLC in this matter are GRANTED pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40 upon proof that counsel has paid the $50 fee to the State Bar as required by Rule 9.40(e) and the $500 fee now required by the San Mateo County Superior Court pursuant to Government Code 70617.  They have met all of the other requirements of California Rules of Court 9.40, which are the only requirements to be eligible for admission pro hac vice.

 

·         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.

 

 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF SCOTT P. KEREW FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE BY EMBASSY SUITES MANAGEMENT, LLC, DJONT OPERATIONS, LLC AND FELCOR/CSS HOLDINGS, L P

 

 

·         Scott Kerew, Shawn Scott and Adam Stinton’s Applications to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant Embassy Suites Management, LLC in this matter are GRANTED pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40 upon proof that counsel has paid the $50 fee to the State Bar as required by Rule 9.40(e) and the $500 fee now required by the San Mateo County Superior Court pursuant to Government Code 70617.  They have met all of the other requirements of California Rules of Court 9.40, which are the only requirements to be eligible for admission pro hac vice.

 

·         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.

 

 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF SHAWN C. SCOTT FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE BY EMBASSY SUITES MANAGEMENT, LLC, DJONT OPERATIONS, LLC AND FELCOR/CSS HOLDINGS, L P

 

 

·         Scott Kerew, Shawn Scott and Adam Stinton’s Applications to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant Embassy Suites Management, LLC in this matter are GRANTED pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40 upon proof that counsel has paid the $50 fee to the State Bar as required by Rule 9.40(e) and the $500 fee now required by the San Mateo County Superior Court pursuant to Government Code 70617.  They have met all of the other requirements of California Rules of Court 9.40, which are the only requirements to be eligible for admission pro hac vice.

 

·         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

3

CIV 526822       JOHN J. HARTFORD VS. ELIZABETH KARNAZES

 

 

JOHN J. HARTFORD                      ALBERT LEE

ELIZABETH KARNAZES                    PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT ELIZABETH KARNAZES TO ANSWER FORM INTERROGATORIES FULLY AND COMPLETELY WITHOUT OBJECTIONS BY JOHN J. HARTFORD

 

 

·         The Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Edward Novak is SUSTAINED as to paragraphs 5 & 6 and OVERRULED as to paragraph 7.

 

·         The Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories fully and completely without objections is GRANTED, and Defendant Elizabeth Karnazes shall serve full and complete amended responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One without objections. The Declaration of Edward Novak and the September 8, 2014 proof of service executed by Edward Novak are sufficiently inconsistent to question their veracity.

 

·         Defendant’s Amended Responses shall be served within 20 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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 527290       MELODY HAWKINS VS. REBECCA DELGADO

 

 

MELODY HAWKINS                        GARY S. MOBLEY

REBECCA DELGADO                       PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT REBECCA DELGADO AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS BY MELODY HAWKINS

 

 

·         Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Rebecca Delgado is GRANTED pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedures §2025.450(a). Plaintiff properly noticed Defendant's deposition. Defendant has simply failed to appear for the noticed deposition and has refused to provide Plaintiff with any date for taking her deposition. Defendant is ordered to appear for her deposition and to complete her deposition at a mutually agreed upon date on or before December 31, 2014. The Court is additionally awarding monetary sanctions for Defendant’s failure to appear pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §2025.450 and §2023.010. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $1000.00 on or before December 31, 2014.

 

·         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 528215       JEAN CERVANTES VS. ERICK AHLGREN

 

 

JEAN CERVANTES                        WILLIAM L. SCHMIDT

ERICK AHLGREN                         MICHAEL L. SMITH

 

 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES BY JEAN CERVANTES

 

 

·         Plaintiff JEAN CERVANTES’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.  The first ground of Plaintiff’s motion, that Defendant had filed an unverified Answer to the verified Complaint, is now MOOT with the filing of Defendant’s verified Answer on November 13, 2014.  As to the second ground, Plaintiff acknowledges that a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to a declaratory relief claim is only available under Wilson v. Bd. Of Ret. Of Los Angeles County Emp. Ret. Ass’n. (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 195 where the alleged facts are not in dispute.  Id. at 201.  With the filing of Defendant’s verified Answer, the facts as alleged in the Complaint are in dispute, and judgment on the pleadings is therefore not appropriate.

 

·         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

6

CIV 529743       MARQUETTE SHURELDS VS. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.

 

 

MARQUETTE SHURELDS                    SARAH ADELAARS

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.                 JASON M. RICHARDSON

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRST Amended COMPLAINT of SHURELDS BY BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

 

 

·         Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to Exhibits E and G only. Gbur v. Cohen (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 296, 301.

 

·         Defendant Bank of America's (BOA) Demurrer to the 1st Amended Complaint is overruled.  Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for violation of CC §2923.6.  The allegation that Bank of America remained as the master servicer after it transferred servicing of Plaintiff's loan to Specialized Loan Servicing does not contradict the allegations in the original complaint that servicing of Plaintiff's loan was transferred to Specialized Loan Servicing.

 

·         The allegation in the original Complaint that BOA transferred the loan servicing to SLS does not contradict the allegation in the FAC because there can be multiple servicers of a loan.  Here, Plaintiff alleges that BOA remained as the master servicer while SLS was a sub-servicer.  The FAC alleges BOA remained the master servicer after the transfer and that “SLS was the subservicing agent to BANK OF AMERICA by contract”.  

 

·         BOA also argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts showing that it remained the master servicer and has merely alleged unsupported conclusions. Here, Plaintiff has alleged that BOA was the master servicer and that “SLS was the subservicing agent to BANK OF AMERICA by contract”. These allegations are sufficient to put defendants on notice of the basis of the claims against them. Further details regarding the contract between BOA and SLS can be brought up through discovery. 

 

·         BOA argues that even if it remains as a "master servicer," §2923.6 would not apply as it does not fall within the definition of "mortgage servicer".  Whether or not BOA falls within the definition of a "mortgage servicer" is a factual determination that would require extrinsic evidence and is not be decided via a Demurrer.

 

·         BOA also argues Plaintiff has failed to allege it was involved in recording the NOD.  The original Complaint alleges "SLS and Wilmington Trust caused a Notice of Default to be recorded against Plaintiff's property" (¶17). It alleges that despite the fact that Plaintiff's complete loan modification application was pending with SLS, SLS and Wilmington Trust recorded a NOD.  (¶53)  The FAC alleges “BANK OF AMERICA, SLS, and the beneficiary of the loan, WILMINGTON TRUST, initiated foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiffs Property in a direct violation of the Homeowner's Bill of Rights” (¶1), "Defendants caused a Notice of Default to be recorded against Plaintiffs property on May 9, 2014" (¶16), and "Despite this fact, defendants recorded a Notice of Default against plaintiff's property on or around May 9, 2014 …” (¶34).

 

·         Moving attorney 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 to 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

7

CIV 529845       SHIRLEY GASTON, ET AL. VS. LINDA WESTCOTT, ET AL.

 

 

SHIRLEY GASTON                        RICHARD M. KELLY

LINDA WESTCOTT                        DORI L. YOB

 

 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BY SHIRLEY GASTON

 

 

·         The Motion for Protective Order is granted in part, and denied in part.

 

·         Plaintiff’s motion makes a prima facie showing that 282 interrogatories is unduly excessive for the type of case that is described in the Complaint. Defendant’s opposition fails to meet the burden of justifying that quantity. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.040, subd.(b).) For example, Defendant offers no reason why separate interrogatories are required for each allegation of “planned,” “conspired,” and “undertaking,” that is alleged in paragraph 21. (See Interrogatories 52 through 99.) The same failing occurs regarding why separate interrogatories are necessary regarding the taking of “staff” as opposed to “employees.”

 

·         Plaintiff shall respond to all interrogatories and may, at her option, combine interrogatories according to the paragraph of the Complaint to which they are directed. For example, Plaintiff may provide a single response or several responses to the interrogatories 52, 55, 58, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 76, 79, 82, 85, 88, 91, all of which seek “all facts” regarding a single sentence in paragraph 21. Similarly, Plaintiff may provide a single response each to the corresponding “all documents” and “all witnesses” interrogatories. Each of Plaintiff’s responses shall identify by number the interrogatories to which the response corresponds.

 

·         Thus, Plaintiff may combine “all fact” interrogatories as they apply to a single paragraph, regarding paragraph 17 through 22, 25 through 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 48, and 49. Plaintiff shall respond to the “all documents” and “all witnesses” interrogatories in the same manner.

 

·         Plaintiff shall serve her responses no later than December 22, 2014, or a date agreed between the parties in writing.

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the Order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall 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 written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. 

 

_____________________________________________________________________
9:01

8

CLJ 210319       W.L. BUTLER VS. DAVE HOWARD, ET AL.

 

 

W.L. BUTLER                           TODD ROTHBARD

DAVE HOWARD                           FRANCOIS X. SORBA

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT (UNLAWFUL DETAINER) of BUTLER BY DAVE HOWARD AND SYNERGY MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.

 

 

·         This matter is moot.  A First Amended Complaint was filed on November 17, 2014.

 


 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:20 PM

© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County