August 27, 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

 

AUGUST 21, 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 463074       JMA INVESTMENTS VS. GOLDEN GATE GENERAL CONTRACTORS

                   INC., ET AL.

 

 

JMA INVESTMENTS                       ROBERT D. EASSA

GOLDEN GATE GENERAL CONTRACTORS INC.  JERRY R. MANOS

 

 

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD BY JMA INVESTMENTS

 

 

·         Plaintiff JMA Investments’ unopposed Petition to Confirm the March 29, 2013 Arbitration Award is GRANTED.  The Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award meets all of the requirements of CCP § 1285, et seq.

·         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

2

CIV 504867       QUINSTREET MEDIA, INC. VS. TIGETEK ASSOCIATES

 

 

QUINSTREET MEDIA, INC.                DAVID J. COOK

TIGETEK ASSOCIATES

 

 

MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS, RESTRAINING ORDER AND TURNOVER ORDER BY QUINSTREET, INC.

 

 

·         Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for an Assignment of Rights, Restraining Order and Turnover Order is GRANTED.  Plaintiff has established entitlement to the relief sought pursuant to CCP § 708.510.  The assignment order is granted pursuant to CCP § 708.510. The restraining order is granted pursuant to CCP § 708.520(a), and the turnover order is granted pursuant to CCP § 699.040(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

3

CIV 519460       POITR AUGUSTYN VS. SAFEWAY INC.

 

 

POITR AUGUSTYN                        PRO/PER

SAFEWAY INC.                          KATHERINE R. MOORE

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF BY SAFEWAY, INC.

 

 

·         Defendant Safeway, Inc.’s Motion for Order Deeming Facts Admitted is GRANTED.  All of those matters set forth in Defendant‘s Request for Admissions, Set One, dated April 15, 2014, are hereby deemed admitted.

 

·         Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is also granted. Plaintiff shall pay Defendant a total of $300.00 in sanctions within 15 days of notice of entry of this order.

 

·         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

4

CIV 523261       APELU FINAUGA, ET AL. VS. REMY'S QUALITY

                   CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

 

 

APELU FINAUGA                         CONOR GRANAHAN

REMY'S QUALITY CONSTRUCTION, INC.     DAN BEATTY

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY

REMY SIJBRANT AGAINST APELU FINAUGA AND CATHERINE FINAUGA

 

 

·         This matter is moot.  Plaintiffs have been granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint.  This summary judgment motion addresses the Complaint and not the First Amended Complaint.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

5

CIV 525444       ARNOLD TILETILE, ET AL. VS. AURORA LOAN SERVICES,

                   LLC, ET AL.

 

 

ARNOLD TILETILE                       ROBIN D. SHOFNER

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC             MEGAN E. GRUBER

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRst Amended COMPLAINT of TILETILE BY NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, HSBC BANK USA, N.A. AND AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC

 

 

·         Defendants NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; HSBC BANK USA, N.A. and AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED as to the 1st Cause of Action for Breach of Contract; 2nd Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and 3rd Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code § 2924.11(g).  These causes of action are sufficiently stated.  As to the 4th Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code § 2923.6(c), the demurrer is MOOT as Plaintiffs have dismissed this claim.

 

·         Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice of AURORA’s Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:10-bk-15685-ES is GRANTED insofar as the document was filed with the Bankruptcy Court, but not as to the truth of any matters asserted therein.

 

·         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.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

6

CIV 526802       MANON E. PISCHEL VS. DEBRA R. SCHOENBERG, ET AL.

 

 

MANON E. PISCHEL                      PRO/PER

DEBRA R. SCHOENBERG                   JENNIFER J. KARPINSKI

 

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRst Amended COMPLAINT of PISCHEL BY DEBRA R. SCHOENBERG, MIHO TAKARADA AND SCHOENBERG FAMILY LAW GROUP

 

 

·         The Demurrers as to the 2nd Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty), 3rd Cause of Action (Professional Malpractice) and 5th Cause of Action (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) are SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND so that Plaintiff can plead sufficient facts to comply with the applicable statute of limitations.

 

·         The Demurrers as to the 1st Cause of Action (Extortion), 4th Cause of Action (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress), the 6th Cause of Action (Fraud) and 7th Cause of Action (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) are OVERRULED.  Each of the respective causes of actions are sufficiently plead.

 

·         The First Amended Complaint alleges multiple communications from Defendants demanding that Plaintiff sign and return a Substitution of Attorney form and these communications were clear threats to withdraw from representation prior to a key hearing.  FAC ¶ 33.  Plaintiff alleges that she had to borrow funds to pay Defendants and for which she had to pay interest, sufficiently alleging damages. FAC ¶ 27.

 

·         The First Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff suffered extreme and severe emotional distress.  Outrageous conduct is a question of fact and not subject to demurrer.

 

·         There are sufficient allegations to support Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants threatened to withdraw prior to the hearing if they did not receive payment by Plaintiff.  While this is more akin to promissory fraud, the Court is treating this cause of action as fraud via false promise and therefore the fraud cause of action is sufficiently pled.

 

·         Plaintiff’s amended pleading shall be filed and served within 20 days after service of notice of entry of order.

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEBRA R. SCHOENBERG, MIHO TAKARADA AND SCHOENBERG FAMILY LAW GROUP

 

 

·         The motion regarding attorney fees has been withdrawn.

 

·         The Motion to Strike is DENIED regarding Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress because that was addressed in the Demurrer.

 

·         The Motion to Strike is DENIED as to Punitive Damages because Plaintiff has alleged sufficiently outrageous conduct by Defendants to warrant and support punitive damages.

 

·         The Motion to Strike is DENIED as to Damages for Emotional Distress because emotional distress damages are recoverable in some cases. The Reply states they are permissible in cases involving extreme and outrageous intentional invasions of one’s mental and emotional tranquility. Plaintiff has alleged adequate facts for emotional distress damages.

 

·         The Motion to Strike is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the First Amended Complaint because they are irrelevant.

 

·         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

7

CIV 529622       MARTHA MENDOZA VS. GREEN BANKER, LLC

 

 

MARTHA MENDOZA                        APRIL S. GLATT

GREEN BANKER, LLC

 

 

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD BY MARTHA MENDOZA

 

 

·         Petitioner Martha Mendoza’s unopposed Petition to Confirm the June 23, 2014 Arbitration Award is GRANTED.  Petitioner Martha Mendoza has generally complied with the requirements of CCP § 1285, et seq.

 

·         Pursuant to the arbitration award, Claimant [Green Brokers] shall recover nothing from the respondent [Martha Mendoza], and Respondent [Martha Mendoza] shall recover $36,418.14 in attorney’s fees and costs from Claimant [Green Brokers].  The judgment in favor of Petitioner Martha Mendoza reflects the findings by the arbitrator.

 

·         Petitioner Martha Mendoza’s Request for an Additional Award of Attorney’s Fees in the amount of $1,620.00 and costs in the amount of $553.00 is DENIED.  The arbitration award states that Petitioner Mendoza shall recover $36,418.14 in attorney’s fees and costs.  The arbitrator has already considered Petitioner’s Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Petitioner Martha Mendoza has not submitted any evidence in support of the Request for Additional Attorney’s Fees and Costs in connection with the Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award.

 

·         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 519471       EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL, LLC VS. KIM LIM

 

 

EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL, LLC         TARA MUREN

KIM LIM                               PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND SERVE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL, LLC

 

 

·         Plaintiff Equable Ascent Financial, LLC‘s Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 473(a)(1).  Subsequent to the filing of the First Amended Complaint, the original plaintiff, Equable Ascent Financial, LLC sold/transferred the collection account to Cavalry SPV I, LLC.  Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to include the correct name of the plaintiff pursuing the action: Cavalry SPV I, LLC.

 

·         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. 

 


 

 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

WRITS AND RECEIVERS CALENDAR

Judge: HONORABLE ROBERT D FOILES

Department 21

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2J

 

AUGUST 21, 2014

 

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

 you must call (650) 261-5121 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

2:00

1

CIV 528215       JEAN CERVANTES VS. ERICK AHLGREN

 

 

JEAN CERVANTES                        WILLIAM L SCHMIDT

ERICK AHLGREN                         MICHAEL L. SMITH

 

 

MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE OF DEFENDANT ERICK AHLGREN TO OBEY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BY JEAN CERVANTES

 

 

·         VACATED.  The Court understands that there is a stipulation by the parties to vacate this hearing.

 


 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County