September 18, 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

 

SEPTEMBER 18, 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 512480       ANN FORRISTER, ET AL. VS. ELIZABETH F. CUNDIFF, ET

                   AL.

 

 

ANN FORRISTER                         BRIAN W. NEWCOMB

ELIZABETH F. CUNDIFF                  KERRI A. JOHNSON

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY

ANN FORRISTER AND CASEY SCHAUFLER AGAINST ELIZABETH F. CUNDIFF AND

KAREN N. CUNDIFF

 

 

·         See below.

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY

MARK SHEPHERD AND MARIELLEN SHEPHERD AGAINST ELIZABETH

F. CUNDIFF AND KAREN N. CUNDIFF

 

 

·         Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to Item Nos. 1 - 10 and is DENIED as to Item No. 11

 

CUNDIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENCE:

 

·         SUSTAINED as to Nos.: 2, 5, 7, 10 and 12.

 

·         OVERRULED as to Nos.: 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13 - 47 (many are overruled because the objections did not quote or set forth the objectionable statement or material as required by CRC Rule 3.1354(b)(3)).

 

CUNDIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARK SHEPHERD AND MARIELLEN  SHEPHERD'S EVIDENCE:

 

·         SUSTAINED as to Nos.: 1, 4 and 18.

 

·         OVERRULED as to Nos.: 2, 3, 5 - 17, 19 and 20 (many are overruled because the objections did not quote or set forth the objectionable statement or material as required by CRC Rule 3.1354(b)(3)).

 

OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH CUNDIFF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION:

 

·         OVERRULED as to Nos.: 1 - 9.

 

OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KAREN CUNDIFF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION:

 

·         OVERRULED as to Nos.: 1 - 6.

 

OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH CUNDIFF IN OPPOSITION TO SHEPHERDS' MOTION:

 

·         OVERRULED as to Nos.: 1 - 6.

 

OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KAREN CUNDIFF IN OPPOSITION TO SHEPHERDS' MOTION:

 

·         OVERRULED as to Nos.: 1 - 6.

 

OBJECTIONS TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF HILLEBRANDT'S DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY CUNDIFFS' IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION:

 

·         SUSTAINED as to Nos.: 1 and 2.

 

PLAINTIFFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS FORRISTER AND SCHAUFLER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON THE COMPLAINT AND SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED BY CUNDIFFS:

 

·         The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the 1st Cause of Action (Quiet Title) is DENIED because Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(2) by not addressing the possibility of the existence of an implied easement, even though raised in the Answer.  Additionally, there are triable issues of material fact relating to the existence of a prescriptive easement, particularly as to the hostile use of the subject property for five years. (See Undisputed Material Fact No. 10 and the Opposition thereto.)  

 

·         The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the 2nd Cause of Action (Trespass) and the 3rd Cause of Action (Preliminary and Permanent Injunction) is DENIED because Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(2) by not addressing the possibility of the existence of an implied easement, even though raised in the Answer.  Additionally, there are triable issues of material fact relating to the existence of a prescriptive easement, particularly as to the hostile use of the subject property for five years. (See Undisputed Material Fact No. 10 and the Opposition thereto.)  The Court notes that before Plaintiffs can assert that Cundiffs did not pay the taxes on the disputed property, Plaintiffs must show that the easement was separately assessed.  (Zimmer v. Dykstra (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 422, 430, fn. 5 and Welsher v. Glickman (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 134, 137.) 

 

·         The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the 1st Cause of Action (Quiet Title), 2nd Cause of Action (Injunctive Relief) and 3rd Cause of Action (Declaratory Relief) of the Second Amended Cross-Complaint is DENIED because Cross-Defendants have failed to meet their burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(2) by not addressing the possibility of the existence of an implied easement, even though raised in the 1st Cause of Action. Additionally, there are triable issues of material fact relating to the existence of a prescriptive easement and adverse possession, particularly as to the hostile use of the subject property for five years.  (See Undisputed Material Fact Nos. 5, 6, 9 and 10 and the Oppositions thereto.)  The Court notes that before Plaintiffs can assert that Cundiffs did not pay the taxes on the disputed property, Plaintiffs must show that the easement was separately assessed.  (Zimmer v. Dykstra (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 422, 430, fn. 5 and Welsher v. Glickman (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 134, 137.) 

 

·         The Court notes that the arguments as to Prescriptive Easement and Implied Easement were not considered because Plaintiffs exceeded the 10-page limit and did not obtain leave of Court.  Pursuant to Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(d), “In a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 20 pages.  No reply or closing memorandum may exceed 10 pages.”  The Reply is 20 pages.

 

CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARK SHEPHERD AND MARIELLEN SHEPHERD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON THE CUNDIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE SHEPHERDS:

 

·         The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the 4th (Negligent Misrepresentation) and 5th (Intentional Misrepresentation) Causes of Actions is DENIED because there are triable issues of material fact whether the Shepherds made a claim of ownership of 234 Nevada or any portion of it (UMF No. 6(b), (c) & (d) and the Opposition thereto); whether the Shepherds disclosed that the owners of 234 Nevada were making a claim of right, title or interest as to a portion of 230 Nevada (UMF No. 7 and the Opposition thereto); whether the Shepherds fulfilled their obligation to disclose all material facts of which they were aware bearing on the value of the property (230 Nevada) (UMF No. 9(c) & (d)); whether any person claimed title or an interest in the subject 41 square feet.  (UMF No. 10 and the Opposition thereto); and whether the asphalt driveway encroached onto 234 Nevada (UMF No. 11 and the Opposition thereto).

 

·         The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the 6th (Breach of Contract) Cause of Action is DENIED because there are triable issues of material fact regarding the interpretation of the contract and what provisions are included in the contract (UMF No. 1(b) and Opposition thereto); and as to whether the Shepherds disclosed all facts concerning the property as required by the contract disclosure statements.  (UMF No. 3 and Opposition thereto.)

 

·         The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the 7th Cause of Action (Negligence) is DENIED because there are triable issues of material fact as to whether the Shepherds breached their duty to disclose all material facts known to them regarding the property; the specific issue is whether the Shepherds disclosed that the driveway encroached upon 234 Nevada (UMF No. 1(d) and Opposition thereto).

 

·         The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the 8th Cause of Action (Indemnity) is DENIED because there are triable issues of material fact.  UMF No. 1 raises a triable issue of material fact as to whether the Shepherds fulfilled their duties to the Cundiffs with respect to the sale of 230 Nevada.  (UMF No. 1 and the Opposition thereto.)  UMF No. 7 raises a triable issue of material fact as to whether Mr. Koepf used the lands of 234 Nevada. (UMF No. 7 and the Opposition thereto.)  UMF No. 8 raises a triable issue of material fact as to whether the Shepherds properly disclosed the encroachment on 234 Nevada (UMF No. 8 and the Opposition thereto). UMF No. 9(b) (c) & (d) raise triable issues of material fact was to whether the Shepherds never made a claim of ownership of 234 Nevada (UMF No. 9 (b) (c) and (d) and the Opposition thereto).

 

·         UMF No. 10(a) & (b) raise triable issues of material fact as to whether the Shepherds made disclosures that the owners of 234 Nevada made claims in the property of 230 Nevada (UMF No. 10 (a) & (b) and the Opposition thereto.)  UMF No. 11 raises triable issues of material fact as to whether the Cundiffs never used the subject 41 square feet (UMF No 11 and the Opposition thereto).  UMF No. 12 (b) & (d) raise triable issues of material facts as to whether  the Shepherds prepared the SSC with the intent to induce the Cundiffs to purchase the property (UMF No 12 (b) & (d) and the Opposition thereto).  UMF No. 13 (a) (b) & (d) raises triable issues of material fact as to whether any person claimed an interest in the 41 square feet, the asphalt driveway on 230 Nevada and whether the Shepherds only used the lands of 230 Nevada (UMF No. 13 (a) (b) & (d) and the Opposition thereto).  UMF No. 14 (a) raises triable issues of material fact as to whether the asphalt driveway encroaches onto 234 Nevada (UMF No. 14 (a) and the Opposition thereto).  UMF No. 15 (a) raises triable issues of material fact as to whether the 41 square feet on 234 Nevada has a bearing or impact on the sue of 230 Nevada.  (UMF No. 15 (a) and the Opposition thereto.)

 

·         The Court notes that the arguments as to Sections III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX  were not considered because Plaintiffs exceeded the 10-page limit and did not obtain leave of Court.  Pursuant to Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(d), “In a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 20 pages.  No reply or closing memorandum may exceed 10 pages.”  The Reply is 19 pages.

 

·         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

2

CIV 522176       APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC. VS. ARTISAN BUILDERS, ET

                   AL.

 

 

APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC.            MICHAEL K. PERKINS

ARTISAN BUILDERS                      BETTY J. LEVINE

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACT, FORM INTERROGATORIES AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR SANCTIONS BY CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY AND APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC.

 

 

·         Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is GRANTED as to the Request for Admission of Facts Nos. 22 - 24, 27 and 28; Special Interrogatory Nos. 27 – 33, 39 and 40 and Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.

 

·         The objections raised by Cross-Complainants to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and Request for Admission of Facts lack merit.  As a cross-defendant, AUI has standing for discovery pertaining to the Cross-Complaint.  The 3rd Cause of Action against AUI alleges a concealment that (1) the Collateral Agreement on which CIC denied coverage for Silva' s injuries violates California law and is therefore null and void as an illegal contract, and (2) CIC and AUI conspired to knowingly deny coverage for Silva's injuries on the basis of an illegal contract.”  (First Am. Cross-Complaint ¶ 32.)  The “Collateral Agreement” is not only relevant to the subject matter, it is the subject matter.

 

·         Cross-Complainants argue that the claim is not based on whether the Collateral Agreement was void or illegal, but only on the fact that it was concealed.  However, in order to prove that a void and illegal agreement was concealed, Cross-Complainants must first prove that the Agreement was, in fact, void or illegal.  Therefore, whether the Collateral Agreement (SolutionOne Agreement) was void or unenforceable is a material issue.

 

·         Cross-Complainants also contend that this Court has already “ruled” that the SolutionOne Agreement is void and unenforceable.  This is untrue.  As to the Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint, the Court ruled only that the “SolutionOne agreement  . . . fails to comply with the requirements of insurance code sections 11657, 11659 and 11660, as well as administrative code sections 2252-2268.”  The Court did not rule on the legal effect of those failures to comply.  Not even Defendants argued that the result was a “void” agreement. (See Moving P&A in Support of Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint.)

·         As to the Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint, the Court made no ruling as to whether the SolutionOne Agreement was void or unenforceable.  The Court merely sustained demurrer against AUI on the ground that the previous demurrer was sustained without leave to amend.

 

·         Insurance Code section 11660 states that “Failure to observe the requirements of Sections 11657 and 11659 shall render a policy issued under Section 11657, and not complying therewith, unlimited.”  That is the only indication of the effect of a failure to comply with sections 11657 and 11659.  Nothing in the Insurance Code implies that the SolutionOne Agreement, as a matter of law, automatically is rendered void or unenforceable.

 

·         Cross-Complainants waived their objections to the follow-up Interrogatories 28-29, 31, 33 and 35.  For expediency, the Court on its own motion relieves them of that waiver for purposes of asserting further responses.

 

·         Cross-Complainants shall serve verified responses to Special Interrogatories 27 through 33, 39 and 40, Request for Admission 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28 and Form Interrogatory 17.1 no later than October 9, 2014.

 

·         Cross-Defendants CIC’s and AUI’s Motion for Sanctions is granted in the amount of $1,920.00.  The objections to discovery lacked all merit. 

 

·         Cross-Complainants Artisan Builders and Richard Powell shall pay, jointly and severally, $1,920.00 to California Insurance Company and Applied Underwriters, Inc. no later than October 9, 2014.  

 

·         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

3

CIV 524841       LES FIELDS/C.C.H.I. INSURANCE SERVICES VS. STUART M.

                   HINES, ET AL.

 

 

LES FIELDS/C.C.H.I. INSURANCE SERVICES BERNARD P. KENNEALLY

STUART M. HINES                       PAUL S. SHENG

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT STUART M. HINES’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY STUART M. HINES

 

 

·         Defendant STUART HINES’ Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §§ 2031.300(b) and 2030.290(b).  Plaintiff served responses to these discovery requests on September 10, 2014.  However, any objections to the discovery requests are deemed waived. 

 

·         Defendant STUART HINES’ Motion for Order Deeming Admissions Admitted is DENIED pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c), provided the responses are in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220.  Plaintiff served responses on September 10, 2014 prior to the hearing on this motion.  Any objections to the discovery requests are deemed waived. 

 

·         Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED.  Defendant shall be awarded $1,269 in attorney’s fees and costs under CCP §§ 2023.030, 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c) and 2033.280(c).  If Defendant’s counsel does not attend the hearing, the sanctions award shall be reduced by $390.  Defendant is ORDERED to pay sanctions within 15 days of service of notice of this 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 526229       3600 WEST BAYSHORE ROAD, LLC VS. 21X PROPERTIES LP,

                   ET AL.

 

 

3600 WEST BAYSHORE ROAD, LLC          ANISA AFNANI

21X PROPERTIES LP                     ANDREW P. HOLLAND

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRst Amended CROSS-COMPLAINT of HALL BY 21X PROPERTIES LP

 

 

·         Defendant/Cross-Defendant 21X PROPERTIES, LP’s Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.  The FACC’s sole cause of action for declaratory relief fails to sufficiently allege either procedural or substantive unconscionability with respect to the parties’ Operating Agreement, attached to the FACC as Exhibit “A”.  Both elements are required to prove that a contract is unconscionable.  Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114.

 

·         Here, all of the contracting parties, including Cross-Complainants, were sophisticated parties who entered into the Operating Agreement with the benefit of independent legal counsel.  While Cross-Complainants are understandably unhappy that the terms of their agreement did not work out in their favor, the Court “will not rewrite contracts to relieve parties from bad deals nor make better deals for parties than they negotiated for themselves.”  Series AGI West Linn v. Eves (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 156, 164. 

 

·         Demurring 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 529229       GREGORY ROCKLIN VS. INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL PARTNERS,

                   LLC, ET AL.

 

 

GREGORY ROCKLIN                       KAI PETERS

INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT OR TO STAY ACTION BY INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC; IZEEN PHARMA, INC.; J. RAM AJJARAPU AND NAREN MALLAKUNTA

 

 

·         The Motion to Quash is denied.  Plaintiff has provided evidence to establish the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of specific jurisdiction. 

 

·         CCP § 418.10 provides that a defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground the Court lacks jurisdiction over him.  Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.  Vons Cos., Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., (1996)14 Cal.4th 434, 445.  Specific jurisdiction exists where the defendant has purposefully availed himself of forum benefits and the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum.  Id. at 446.

·         When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction.  Id. at 449.  In this case, Plaintiff has offered evidence sufficient to show the Court has specific jurisdiction over each defendant. 

·         Plaintiff’s declaration states that he lives and works in California.  In 2013, Defendant Mallakunta contacted him, in California, and asked him to provide consulting services.  Plaintiff then negotiated a contract with Mallakunta and Ajjarapu by email and telephone while Plaintiff was in California, except for one occasion when the three met in New Jersey and the agreement was briefly discussed.  In June of 2013, they reached an agreement and Ajjarapu sent Plaintiff a written contract signed by Ajjarapu and Mallakunta on behalf of ICP and Izeen.  Plaintiff signed it in California.  Plaintiff further states that under the terms of the agreement, he was engaged on an ongoing basis for a term of approximately 2.5 years and he performed approximately 90% of his work pursuant to the agreement in California. 

·         The cases on which ICP relies are distinguishable. In Cornell, the defendant placed a mail order with a California corporation for a scientific instrument.  The price was quoted by the seller’s agent in New Jersey and the purchase ordered was mailed to the agent.  Cornell University Medical College v. Superior Court (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 311.  The instrument was damaged during shipping and the seller filed suit against an insurance company.  The insurer cross-complained against the purchaser.  The Court of Appeal determined that an isolated purchase of goods was insufficient to support jurisdiction.  Furturesat Industries similarly involved a single purchase of goods.  Futuresat Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 155, 160.  The facts of this case involve more than an isolated purchase of goods.  Lastly, in Sibley, the defendant merely executed a guaranty agreement regarding money owed to a California corporation.  Sibley v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 442, 447. 

·         The choice of law provision in the consulting agreement does not change the analysis.  In Burger King and Pedus, the Courts considered a choice of law provision as one factor supporting minimum contacts with the forum.  They did not indicate that a choice of law provision prevents a finding of minimum contacts.  Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 481-482; Pedus Building Services, Inc. v. Allen (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 152, 165. 

·         Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract clearly arises from ICP’s contacts with California as it alleges that ICP failed to perform under the contract negotiated, executed and performed by Plaintiff in the state. 

·         Because Plaintiff has established the necessary minimum contacts, the burden shifts to ICP to show that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.  Integral, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at 591. 

·         Here, ICP primarily asserts it would be burdensome to litigate in California because its witnesses and evidence are in other states.  However, any burden to Defendant is just one of the interests to be weighed.  Moreover, neither the Ajjarapu declaration nor the Mallakunta declaration identifies any specific witness or evidence to support ICP’s conclusory assertion.  In contrast, Plaintiff clearly has an interest in litigating this matter locally, and California has an interest in providing a forum to its residents.  Id.

·         Plaintiff’s Complaint similarly asserts a fraud cause of action against Ajjarapu and Mallakunta in their individual capacity based on allegations that they made misrepresentations to him, a California resident, during the negotiation of the consulting agreement and that this conduct was intended to induce him to enter into the agreement.  Izeen is named in the fraud cause of action on the grounds of its participation in a conspiracy with the other defendants to obtain consulting services from Plaintiff without paying for them.  Such conduct would equally have been directed at Plaintiff.

 

·         Furthermore, this conduct forms the basis of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants and, for the reasons discussed above, they have not established that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. 

 

·         The Motion to Stay the Action is also denied.  Defendants have not provided evidence sufficient to establish that California is an inconvenient forum.  

 

·         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

6

CIV 529869       ALDO GHIOZZI, ET AL. VS. FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

 

 

ALDO GHIOZZI                          RONALD J. COOK

FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

 

 

PETITION TO COMPEL APPRAISAL BY ALDO GHIOZZI AND LOU ANN GHIOZZI

 

 

·         This matter is moot.  The hearing has been continued to October 15, 2014 at 9:00 A.M. in the Law and Motion department.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

7

CLJ 526274       MIDLAND FUNDING LLC VS. YNDIRA LOPEZSIORDIA

 

 

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC                   SARAH A. ROBINSON-MCELROY

YNDIRA LOPEZSIORDIA                   PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION for ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS BY MIDLAND FUNDING LLC

 

 

·         Plaintiff Midland Funding LLC’s Motion for Order Establishing Admissions is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2033.280.  Plaintiff served Defendant with relevant discovery over four months ago, and Defendant has still not responded.  All those matters in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set No. 1, served on May 1, 2014, are hereby deemed admitted.

 

·         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.

 


 

CIn the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

WRITS AND RECEIVERS CALENDAR

Judge: Honorable JOSEPH C. SCOTT

Department 25

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2L

 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014

 

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

1

CIV 529733       MCAFEE, INC. VS. LISA BELLAMY

 

 

MCAFEE, INC.                          FRANK BUSCH

LISA BELLAMY

 

 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BY MCAFEE, INC.

 

 

·         Continued to September 25, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. on the Writs and Receivers calendar.    

 

_____________________________________________________________________

2:00

2

CIV 530285       RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER, ET AL. VS. FARIN NAMDARAN

                   YEGANEH, ET AL.

 

 

RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER                 KATHLEEN S. KIZER

FARIN NAMDARAN YEGANEH

 

 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUCTION BY RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER

 

 

·         Appear.     

 


 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:29

© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County