May 3, 2016
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 susan irene etezadi

Department 18

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2M

 

Thursday, April 28, 2016

 

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

1

CIV 534748†††††† MARY MAHER VS. THE SHOREBIRD HOMEOWERNERS ASSOCIATION

 

 

MARY MAHER†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† MITCH O. ONU

THE SHOREBIRD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION†††† STUART E. JONES

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH THE SHOREBIRD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION'S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA BY MARY MAHER

 

This matter is off calendar at the request of Plaintiff because the parties have reached a settlement. Notice of Settlement was submitted to the court on April 21, 2016 by plaintiff.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

2

CIV 535174†††††† MICHAEL J. COLYER VS. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC

 

 

MICHAEL J. COLYER†††††††††††††††††††† GAGIK STEPANYAN

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC†††††††††††† DHRUV M. SHARMA

 

 

DEMURRER TO SECOND Amended COMPLAINT of COLYER BY OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC

 

Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLCís Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is decided as follows:

As to the first cause of action for promissory estoppel, the demurrer to this cause of action is sustained without leave to amend. Promissory estoppel is subject to a two year statute of limitations. CCP ß 339. Plaintiff bases this cause of action on an alleged promise made in 2012, however this case was not filed until 2015.

As to the second cause of action for violation of Civil Code ß 2923.55, the demurrer to this cause of action is sustained without leave to amend. Section 2923.55 is not retroactive and the alleged offense triggering this claim occurred before the January 1, 2013 active date of this section.

As to the third cause of action for violation of Civil Code ß 2923.6, the demurrer to this cause of action is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff alleges that Ocwen has not provided Plaintiff with a written determination as to his eligibility for a loan modification since a change in his circumstances. Plaintiff has not alleged any actionable conduct against Ocwen in this cause of action and is granted leave to amend to do so.

As to the fourth cause of action for violation of Civil Code ß 2923.7, the demurrer to this cause of action is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff has not alleged any actionable conduct against Ocwen in this cause of action after the effective date of the statute, nor has Plaintiff alleged with specificity any facts demonstrating a violation of the statute. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to do so.

As to the fifth cause of action for declaratory relief under Civil Code ß 2924.12, the demurrer to this cause of action is overruled. The SAC alleges that Ocwen is the current servicer, therefore an injunction to stop the foreclosure for violation(s) of the HBOR would be appropriate relief.

As to the sixth cause of action for negligence, the demurrer to this cause of action is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff has not clearly stated facts demonstrating a special relationship between Ocwen and Plaintiff and what actions are alleged to be a breach of that duty. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to clarify the claims.

As to the seventh cause of action for unfair business practices, the demurrer to this cause of action is overruled for the reasons stated above.

Note: In the future, all parties are directed to comply with CRC 3.1113(d) which establishes a page limit of 15 pages for an opening memorandum.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Courtís ruling for the Courtís 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Courtís signature.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 535928†††††† EVE SUTTON, ET AL. VS. HSBC BANK USA, ET AL.

 

EVE SUTTON††††††††††††††††††††††††††† GLENN L. MOSS

HSBC BANK USA†††††††††††††††††††††††† TORIANA S. HOLMES

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFíS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A, ET AL.

 

See Below

 

DEMURRER TO FIRST Amended COMPLAINT of SUTTON BY WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A, ET AL.

 

The demurrer and motion to strike are to be heard together. The demurring party failed to file a declaration, as required by CCP ß430.41(a)(3), showing that the parties met and conferred, in person or by telephone, for the purpose of determining whether an agreement could be reached to resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

 

The hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike are continued to May 19, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department so that the parties may meet and confer in person or by telephone. The demurring party is required to file, no later than 7 days prior to the new hearing date, a code-compliant declaration stating either (1) the parties have met and conferred in person or by telephone and (a) the parties have resolved the objections raised in the demurrer, which shall be taken off calendar or (b) the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer or (2) the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.If the parties fail to file and serve the Declaration demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Section 430.41, the Demurrer will be stricken as procedurally improper.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Courtís ruling for the Courtís 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Courtís signature.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 537216†††††† LE BOULANGER, INC. VS. NOUVEAU BAKERY LLC

 

 

LE BOULANGER, INC.†††††††††††††††††††††† DAVID GURNICK

NOUVEAU BAKERY LLC

 

 

MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE AND FOR SANCTIONS BY NOUVEAU BAKERY, LLC

 

Defendantsí objections to evidence are sustained as to 1 through 20.

 

The motion to transfer this action to San Francisco County is GRANTED.Defendants have established that this action was not commenced in the proper court.CCP ß396b(a).†† This declaratory relief action is based on allegations of trademark infringement.In an action involving trademark infringement, liability damages arise where the breach of the obligation not to infringe occurs.Shores v. Chip Steak Co. (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 620.The evidence indicates that defendants are only doing business as La Boulangerie de San Francisco in San Francisco County.†† To the extent plaintiff argues it has/and or will lose business in San Mateo County, it has not offered authority to establish that this is a basis for venue.

 

Plaintiffís request for a continuance to conduct discovery is DENIED.

 

Requests for sanctions by both sides are DENIED.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Courtís ruling for the Courtís 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Courtís signature.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 537708†††††† AVIS CORPORATION, ET AL. VS. MEHMET GUNDOGDU, ET AL.

 

 

AVIS CORPORATION††††††††††††††††††††† KENNETH R. VAN VLECK

MEHMET GUNDOGDU

 

 

HEARING ON PETITION TO COMPEL BINDING CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION FILED BY SUBHASH GROVER, ET AL.

 

Plaintiffs / Petitioners AVIS CORPORATION and SUBHASH GROVERís Petition to Compel Binding Contractual Arbitration is DENIED.

 

Defendants / Respondents MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR GUNDOGDU have filed a Cross-Complaint alleging causes of action not only against Plaintiffs / Petitioners, but also against Cross-Defendants MARCUS & MILLICHAP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT SERVICES and FABIO SANGIORGI, who are not parties to the arbitration agreement.Where, as here, a party is involved in litigation with third parties arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a real possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of law or fact, arbitration should not be compelled.Code Civ. Proc. ß 1281.2(c); Henry v. Alcove Investment, Inc. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d. 94, 101; C.V. Starr & Co. v. Boston Reinsurance Corp. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1637, 1642.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Courtís ruling for the Courtís 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Courtís signature.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 537852†† ††††IN RE: M. DRAKE

 

 

J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC††††† MATTHEW R EASON

MARIE DRAKE

 

 

HEARING ON PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF TRANSFER OF STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PAYMENT RIGHTS FILED BY J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC

 

Petitionerís unopposed Petition for Approval of Structured Settlement Payment Rights is GRANTED pursuant to California Insurance Code ß10139.5. The transfer of the structured settlement payment rights is fair and reasonable under the circumstances and in the best interests of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payeeís dependents. The transfer complies with the requirements of the Insurance Code and will not contravene other applicable law.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Courtís ruling for the Courtís 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Courtís signature.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


 

 

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, April 28, 2016

 

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 530289†††††† NATHANIEL BASOLA SOBAYO VS. MARIA SOSA

 

 

NATHANIEL BASOLA SOBAYO†††††††††††††† PRO/PER

MARIA SOSA††††††††††††††††††††††††††† STEVE LEYDIKER

 

 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BY NATHANIEL BASOLA SOBAYO

 

         DENIED.Plaintiff has failed to adequately factually demonstrate 1) a likelihood of success on the merits and 2.) irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.The bald allegation of racial discrimination alone is not the same as evidence supporting the claim. The moving papers do not appear to even attempt to show a liklihood of success on merit and further, the simple claim of uniqueness of the property standing alone, is insufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm on these facts as presented. Lastly, monetary damages are adequate to redress plaintiffís claims as this is a wholly commercial piece of property.


 

 

 


POSTED: 3:00 PM

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County