September 19, 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

 

Thursday, September 14, 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-01931     THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC. vs. PEARLMARK HINES SAN MATEO,

                    LP, et al.

 

 

THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC.                  CORFIELD, MICHAEL A.

PEARLMARK HINES San Mateo              HEATHER N. INGLE

 

 

PEARLMARK HINES SAN MATEO, LP AND HGP SAN MATEO OWNER LLC/S HEARING ON DEMURRER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is continued to September 28, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.

 

 



9:00

Line: 2

16-CIV-02363     RAKSHA BHOW, et al. vs. GUNJAN BHOW

 

 

RAKSHA BHOW                            AMIEL L. WADE

GUNJAN BHOW                            MARK B. FREDKIN

 

 

AMI BHOW’S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION, COPYING, TESTING, SAMPLING AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONICALLY SORED INFORMATION ALSO DEMANDED, AND IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTION.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Intervenor /Cross Defendant Ami Bhow’s motion to compel further Responses to Demand for Inspection, Copying, Testing, Sampling and Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information, and Imposing Monetary Sanction, is ruled on as follows:

 

This motion is not untimely.  The parties agreed that the deadline for filing a motion to compel was extended to July 14, 2017, and it is undisputed that Intervenor timely filed the motion on July 14, 2017.  Further, there appears to be no prejudice to Plaintiff Raksha Bhow (“Plaintiff”) from The Motion of Intervenor Ami Bhow (“Intervenor”) for Order Compelling Further having been served with the motion on July 17, 2017, instead of July 14, 2017.  It also appears that the delay in service was due in part to Plaintiff’s counsel’s secretary representing she would be available on July 14, 2017 for service and later claiming to be unavailable.  (See Piggins Decl.)  Additionally, the court finds the meet and confer requirements of CCP § 2031.310(b)(2) were sufficiently complied with.

 

The motion to compel further response to Demand nos. 1-3, 13 and 26 is DENIED.  These responses are code-compliant.  (See C.C.P. §§ 2031.210, 2031.220.)  To the extent Plaintiff has not provided all responsive documents as agreed, Intervenor must bring a motion to compel compliance under C.C.P. section 2031.320.  Lastly, Intervenor has not set forth specific facts showing good cause for ordering Plaintiff to provide Plaintiff’s original documents to Intervenor when it is represented that original documents will be produced upon request.  (See C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(1).) 

 

The motion to compel further response to Demand no. 4 is DENIED.  Plaintiff states that she will make the original documents available for inspection.  Intervenor fails to establish good cause for requiring Plaintiff to turn over all of the originals to Intervenor. 

 

The motion to compel further response to Demand nos. 5, 6-10, 15-16, 19-24, 28-29, 35, 37-38 (second ones), 39-40, and 42, is GRANTED.  Plaintiff has qualified her responses by objections.  Plaintiff’s objections are without merit as she has not explained how these requests are overbroad, vague and ambiguous.  Plaintiff is to provide further response without objections.

 

The motion to compel further response to Demand nos. 11, 17-18, 30-31, 33, 36-38 (first ones), 36 (second one), 45, 46, and 52-53, is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is to provide further responses, without objections, that comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, including the reason for the inability to comply.

 

The motion to compel further response to Demand nos. 47 and 54, is DENIED.  These demands on their face seek documents protected by the attorney-client privilege. Amiel Wade is Plaintiff’s counsel in this action, and therefore no. 47, on its face, clearly seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege.  No. 54 also seeks documents between Wade and Anal Shah, who also appears to be Plaintiff’s attorney as well.  C.C.P. section 2031.240(c)(1) provides that if an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.  Here, however, there is no reason for Plaintiff to provide such information when it is clear that the privilege applies based on the face of these requests.  Finally, Contrary to Ami’s argument, no verification is required to preserve objections, and it does not result in a waiver of the objections made.  (See Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.)   

 

The motion to compel further response to Demand nos. 48 and 49, is GRANTED.  It appears that Plaintiff did not provide responses to these requests.  Plaintiff is to provide further responses without objections.

 

The motion to compel further response to Demand number 50 is DENIED and 51 is GRANTED.  Intervenor has not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by Demand 50 (See C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(1).) but the information sought by Demand 51 is likely to lead to admissible relevant information.

 

Both Intervenor’s and Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

 

Plaintiff is to serve Intervenor further responses, without objections, on or before September 29, 2017.

 

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, Intervenor 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: 3

16-CIV-02469     TELIGENZ TECH SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. vs. TORA HOLDINGS,

                     INC., et al.

 

 

TELIGENZ TECH SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.       TERANCE D. ORME

TORA HOLDINGS, INC.                    JEREMY SUGERMAN

 

 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

 

The clerk’s office confirms that a $250,000 check/money order was received and placed in the court’s trust account on September 7, 2017.  Although this occurred more than 30 days after service of the court’s June 26th order, there is no indication that the court lacks discretion to accept a late deposit.  The purpose of the statute is to secure a possible costs or fee award and the late deposit accomplishes this purpose.

 

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-CIV-00787     BRIAN M. COYNE vs. MARIA ESTELLA ORELLANA, et al.

 

 

BRIAN M. COYNE                         SHEEHY, MARIE C.

MARIA ESTELLA ORELLANA                 JOHN A. TOAL

 

 

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend is granted.  Plaintiff shall file the proposed amended complaint no later than September 22, 2017.  

 

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

17-CIV-01563     C. KAUFMAN vs. SILICON VALLEY AVIATION, LLC, et al.

 

 

KAUFMAN, C.                            MARK J. SOLOMON

SILICON VALLEY AVIATION, LLC            FRANCOIS X. SORBA

 

 

MICHAEL REICH AND SILICON VALLEY AVIATION, LLC’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEAFULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

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

 

 



9:00

Line: 6

17-CIV-01577     CARMEN ZURITA, et al. vs. JUAN JIMENEZ, et al.

 

 

CARMEN ZURITA                          KENNETH GREENSTEIN

JUAN JIMENEZ                           MARC S. FELDMAN, ESQ

 

 

JUAN JIMENEZ AND ALICIA JIMENEZ’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED for failure to establish that it was served on plaintiff in compliance with CCP §1005.  

 

The Proof of Service indicates the moving papers were served by mail on August 18, 2017.  This service gave plaintiff the requisited 16 court days’ notice but only an additional four calendar days, not the five required for mail service.  It appears the defendant counted September 4, 2017, a court holiday, as a court day.

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: 7

17-CIV-01732    CECELIA DOLORES PALOMAR vs. VICTORIA A. KAUFMAN, et al

 

 

CECELIA DOLORES PALOMAR                STEPHEN M. VERNON

STEVEN J. HERBERT                      MARC D. BENDER

 

 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE WITH CASE# 17-UDL-00473

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff Palomar’s motion to consolidate this matter with 17-UDL-00473 is DENIED.  17-UDL-00473 has settled and there is, therefore, no reason to consolidate the cases.

 

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: 8

17-UDL-00573     STEVE HERBERT vs. CECELIA D. PALOMAR, et al.

 

 

STEVE HERBERT                          MARC D. BENDER

CECELIA D. PALOMAR                     Pro/PER

 

 

TO TRAIL CASE# 17-CIV-01732

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants Palomar’s motion to consolidate this matter with 17-CIV-00573 has been DENIED.  This matter has settled and there is, therefore, no reason to consolidate the cases.

 

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: 9 & 10

CIV527086     NORAYR ROUCHANIAN ET AL. VS. MARTHA A MADRIGAL ET AL.

 

 

NORAYR ROUCHANIAN                      ROBERT E. CARTWRIGHT

MARTHA A. MADRIGAL                     KEVIN J. GRAY

 

 

9. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING AUGMENTATION OF PLAINTIF’S EXPERT WITNESS LIST

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiffs Norayr Rouchanian and Zepur Okhannessian’s Renewed Motion for an Order Permitting Augmentation of Plaintiffs’ Expert Witness List is GRANTED. 

 

As an initial matter, although the Court has considered it in ruling on the motion, Defendant’s Opposition was served late, in violation of Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1005(b), which requires service of opposition papers by overnight delivery.

 

Although discovery in this case is closed, the Court finds good cause to permit Plaintiffs to augment their expert witness list to add treating physician Dr. Gowda, and to allow Defendant Madrigal to depose Dr. Gowda prior to trial.    Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 2034.610 and 2034.620.  The Court finds Plaintiffs were sufficiently diligent in disclosing Dr. Gowda to Defendant, whom Plaintiffs did not know about until mid-June 2017.  The primary grounds for the Court’s 6-27-17 Order denying Plaintiffs’ prior motion to augment their expert witness list was the impending 7-10-17 trial date, which would have given Defendant Madrigal insufficient time to depose Dr. Gowda and otherwise prepare for trial.  The Court, since that ruling, continued the July 2017 trial date to Jan. 16, 2017.  Plaintiff has since requested a further continuance to February 2017 due to a scheduling conflict, which Defendant Madrigal has not yet opposed.  Thus trial will not take place until mid-Jan. 2018 at the earliest.  Defendant now has ample time to depose Dr. Gowda and prepare for trial.  By Jan. 2018, Defendant will have known of Dr. Gowda’s involvement and Plaintiffs’ intention to call her as a witness for at least seven months.

 

The renewed motion is proper under Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1008(b).  Defendant argues Plaintiffs seek “reconsideration” of the Court’s 6-27-17 Order.  While there is a 10-day time limit for motions for reconsideration under 1008(a), there is no time limit for a renewed motion, such as this, under Sect. 1008(b).  The trial continuance constitutes the changed circumstances, which eliminates the prejudice.  Plaintiffs indicate they already served, on June 9, 2017, an amended expert designation disclosing Dr. Gowda.  That designation shall be effective, consistent with this Order.  

Plaintiffs shall immediately coordinate with Dr. Gowda and Defendant to make arrangements for Dr. Gowda’s deposition. 

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.

 

 

10. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENTS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiffs Norayr Rouchanian and Zepur Okhannessian’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is continued to October 5, 2017 at 9 a.m. in the Law & Motion Department to allow Defendant Madrigal an opportunity to respond, if she chooses, to the Declaration of Audrey Siegel, filed Sept. 7, 2017, submitted with Plaintiffs’ Reply.  Plaintiffs’ moving papers included no admissible evidence regarding the factors set forth in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499; Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 877.6.  Plaintiffs have attempted to remedy this omission with Ms. Siegel’s Declaration attached to Plaintiffs’ Reply brief, which identifies in general terms Plaintiffs’ claimed special damages, that is, it appears to set forth a “rough approximation of plaintiff’s minimum recovery(Tech-Bilt Factor No. 1), which Plaintiffs identify as roughly $1.7 million.  The Siegel Declaration further states that settling Defendant Mid-Century Insurance Co.’s potential liability derives from a contract between Mid-Century and Plaintiffs governing uninsured motorists, with an apparent policy limit of $250,000.   

 

If Mid-Century’s maximum exposure is $250,000, then that fact appears to weigh in favor of a finding that its $150,000 settlement was entered into in good faith.  If Defendant Madrigal contends Mid-Century’s potential exposure exceeds $250,000 (its apparent contractual limit), then Defendant Madrigal should explain why. 

 

At least 10 days prior to the continued Oct. 5, 2017 hearing date, either party may submit additional argument pertaining to the present application if they choose, not exceeding 3 pages, plus any additional evidence they wish to submit (no page limit).  Plaintiffs may wish to submit a revised version of the Sept. 7, 2017 Siegel Declaration, which purports to attach several exhibits, but none appear to have been attached.  Any evidence should be submitted via declaration(s).  Attorney argument is not evidence.  The settlement agreements submitted with the moving papers were not attached to any declaration.

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

CIV531054     CITY OF PALO ALTO VS. GARY P. CECCATO, ET AL.

 

 

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO                 MARC G. HYNES

GARY P. CECCATO                        PETER H. BONIS

 

 

GARY CECCATO’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants and Cross-complainants CECCATOS AND MONTGOMERYS motion to consolidate CIV 531054 and CIV 532571 is ordered off calendar. No Proof of Service is on file in either CIV 531054 or CIV 532571. (CRC Rule 3.1300(c) (proof of service must be filed five court days before hearing).)

 

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: 12

CIV532571     GARY CECCATO, ET AL. VS. 1893 WOODLAND EPA LLC, ET AL.

 

 

GARY CECCATO                           PETER H. BONIS

1893 WOODLAND EPA LLC                  DAVID J. LONICH

 

 

TO TRAIL CASE# CIV531054

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiffs and Cross-defendants CECCATOS AND MONTGOMERYS motion to consolidate CIV 531054 and CIV 532571 is ordered off calendar. No Proof of Service is on file in either CIV 531054 or CIV 532571. (CRC Rule 3.1300(c) (proof of service must be filed five court days before hearing).)

 

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

 

Presiding Judge Law and Motion Calendar

Judge: Honorable susan irene etezadi

Department 18

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2L

 

Thursday, September 14, 2017

 

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

 you must call (650) 261-5118 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

Line: 1

CIV527086     NORAYR ROUCHANIAN, ET AL. VS. MARTHA A. MADRIGAL, ET AL.

 

 

NORAYR ROUCHANIAN                      ROBERT E. CARTWRIGHT

MARTHA A. MADRIGAL                     KEVIN J. GRAY

 

 

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE BY NORAYR ROUCHANIAN AND ZEPUR OKHANNESSIAN

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to continue trial is DENIED without prejudice for lack of proof that the motion papers were served in accordance with CCP 1005. The statute requires 10 additional calendar days’ notice where service is by mail to an address outside of California.

 

 



 

 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

WRITS AND RECEIVERS CALENDAR

Judge: Honorable GEORGE A. MIRAM

Department 28

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2F

 

Thursday, September 14, 2017

 

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

 you must call (650) 261-5128 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

Line: 1

17-CIV-01086     SPRING RIDGE, LLC vs. PARK WINE COMPANY, et al.

 

 

PARK WINE COMPANY                      MORGAN K. LOPEZ

SPRING RIDGE, LLC                      WILLIAM J. frimel

 

 

Motion for preliminary injunction

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion for preliminary injunction brought by Plaintiff Spring Ridge LLC is DENIED. 

 

Plaintiff’s evidence is contradicted by Defendants evidence, such that a trial on the merits of their respective positions will be necessary in order to assess the terms of any oral contract.  Given the conflict in the evidence provided by the parties, Plaintiff has not established a reasonable probability that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits.

 

Plaintiff has failed to establish that any significant harm, let alone irreparable harm, will result if Park Wine is permitted to sell the remaining 383 cases of unsold 2013 vintage Pinot Noir and the remaining 1,002 cases of unsold 2014 Pinot Noir bearing a “Varner” label in lieu of a “Neely” label, because the profits from the venture that are to be divided between the parties does not depend on which label is displayed on the bottles.  Monetary damages are an adequate legal remedy. 

 

Furthermore, Defendants make a convincing argument that there will be significant loss if the unsold 2013 and 2014 wines are not sold promptly.  A delay in sale does not benefit either party.

 



2:00

Line: 2

17-CIV-03501     NAPEAN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, et al. vs. SELECT

                    PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC., et al.

 

 

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC.         THOMAS A. woods

NAPEAN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC              CARLOS A. ALVAREZ

 

 

Motion for preliminary injunction

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion for preliminary injunction by Plaintiffs Napean Capital Group, LLC and Frederic Shih-Hsing Yang And Jihong Anna Yang, Co-Trustees of the Yang Family Trust, U/A//dated May 14, 2012  (hereafter “Plaintiffs”) is DENIED.  

 

The lack of foundation and hearsay evidentiary objections raised by Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and U.S. Bank N.A., Successor Trustee In Interest To LaSalle Bank N.A., as Trustee on behalf of the holders of the WAMU Passthrough Certificates Series 2007-HY7 (hereafter “Opposing Defendants”) as to the alleged payoff letter attached as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Michelle Leifeste and Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Michael W. Greco are SUSTAINED.

 

First, there is no credible admissible evidence that Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits because the document they present as “evidence” that Opposing Defendants’ loan was paid off is an alleged payoff letter offered without foundation, either as to its authenticity or evidence that it is a business record that should be admissible for as proof of the matter asserted therein. The declaration of Michelle Simon, an employee of Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., the alleged author of the alleged payoff letter, provides credible admissible evidence that the alleged payoff letter is not genuine but is in fact a forgery.  The Declaration of Michelle Simon also provides credible admissible evidence that the business records of Select Portfolio Services establishes that the loan was not paid and that while the borrower’s personal liability may be stayed or discharged in a bankruptcy, the records of Select Portfolio Services indicate that their lien remains in effect. 

 

Second, Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law in that they can file a les pendens against the property so that any buyer at a foreclosure sale will take title subject to their claims. 

 

Third, there is no evidence of irreparable harm because Plaintiffs, as junior lienholders, have no unique right of possession to the property, but are only entitled to payment of their lien, subject to the satisfaction of any senior liens.   The fact that a valid foreclosure sale conducted by the holder of a senior lien does not produce sufficient proceeds to fully satisfy Plaintiffs’ lien is not harm resulting from any wrongful act by the Opposing Defendants, let alone irreparable harm resulting from any wrongful act by the Opposing Defendants.  

 

Finally, the claims that the proposed foreclosure sale is invalid because Defendants are not the beneficiary of the WAMU deed of trust and will not pass valid title to the purchasers demonstrates that a foreclosure sale will not pose irreparable harm.

 



2:00

Line: 3

17-CIV-03728     JEFFREY EDRALIN vs. SAN MATEO COUNTY EMPLOYEES'

                    RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

 

 

JEFFREY EDRALIN                        MICHAEL E. ADAMS

SAN MATEO COUNTY EMPLOYEES'           

RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

 

 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE REGARDING WRIT PETITION

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Appear for conference.

 



2:00

Line: 4

CIV406569     GOLDEN WEST FORECLOSURE SERVICE, INC.vs. SAMUEL L.

                CUSTER, et al

 

 

GOLDEN WEST FORECLOSURE SERVICE, INC.   JOHN B. VLAHOS

SAMUEL L. CUSTER                       ELENA RIVKIN

 

 

PETITION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS FUNDS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

GRANTED.

 



2:00

LineS: 5 & 6  

CIV536764     VIOLETA GRIGORESCU VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SAN

                 MATEO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

 

 

VIOLETA GRIGORESCU                     GEORGE F. CAMERLENGO

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SAN MATEO      JOSHUA E. MORRISON

COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

 

 

5. DEMURRER TO UNVERIFIED FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Continued to October 19, 2017 at 2 pm.

 

 

6. MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Continued to October 19, 2017 at 2 pm.

 



2:00

Line: 7

CLJ533935     ARF FINANCIAL, LLC. VS. BELLA ROMERO LLC, ET AL.

 

 

ARF FINANCIAL, LLC                     ANGELA ALEXANDRA VELEN

BELLA ROMERO, LLC

 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER CHARGING PARTNER'S INTEREST IN PARTNERSHIP AND ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER

TENTATIVE RULING:

GRANTED.

 


 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County