May 25, 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, May 25, 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-00926     JUSTIN SCHUH, et al. vs. ROPERS MAJESKI KOHN BENTLEY,

                        et al.

 

 

JUSTIN SCHUH                           DALE CHEN

ROPERS MAJESKI                         TODD A. ROBERTS

 

 

motion to compel arbitration and request for stay

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion of Defendants Ropers, Majeski, Kohn and Bentley, and Matthew Zumstein (“Defendants”) to Compel Arbitration and Request for Stay, is GRANTED.  The arbitration provision in the retainer agreement provides for arbitration of any fee dispute between Plaintiffs Justin Schuh and Catherine Nguyen (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants.  (See Roberts Decl., Exh. A.)  Plaintiffs acknowledge that a component of their legal malpractice claim includes a dispute regarding attorney’s fees for services rendered by Defendants in the underlying case.  Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to arbitrate any fee dispute between the parties through the San Mateo County Bar Association fee dispute program.  

 

This action is STAYED pending the outcome of the arbitration, or upon further order of the court.

 

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: 2

16-CIV-01192     6450 MOTORS, LLC. vs. LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES,

                    APC, et al.

 

 

6450 MOTORS, LLC.                      MICHAEL KAY

kevin breaszeale                       david h. schwartz

 

 

to trail motion to consolidate filed on civ537370

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff, in case CIV537370, unopposed Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.  Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1048(a).  The three cases at issue, Louis Liberty v. Liberty, Otto & Guillen, et. al. (CIV537370), 6450 Motors LLC v. Louis Liberty & Assoc., APC, et. al. (16CIV01192), and Hamcor Inc. v. Louis Liberty & Assoc., et. al. (CIV538486), appear to involve commons questions of law and/or fact, and thus consolidation will promote judicial economy and efficiency.  As no trial dates have been set, any resulting prejudice appears minimal.  Moreover, the motion is unopposed.  Accordingly, the Court orders the three cases consolidated for all purposes.

 

The lead case shall be Louis Liberty v. Liberty, Otto & Guillen, et. al. (CIV537370).

 

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: 3

16-CIV-02433     SALLY LAU vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.

 

 

SALLY LAU                              MATTHEW MELLEN

wells fargo bank, n.a.                 mark d. lonergan

 

 

motion for leave to file first amended complaint

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial. Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 290, 296-297.

 

Here, Plaintiff seeks to add a cause of action and new fact allegations which all arose from the same operative facts as alleged in the original complaint. It is in the interest of justice and promotes judicial economy to allow Plaintiff to litigate all claims against this defendant in the same action.

 

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-00865     GREGORY C. LUDLUM vs. STEPHEN LUDLUM, et al.

 

 

GREGORY C. LUDLUM                      DAVID G. FINKELSTEIN

stephen ludlum                         timothy s. o’hara

 

 

motion to be relieved as counsel

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Good cause appearing, the unopposed motion of Timothy S. O’Hara to be relieved as counsel for Defendants STEPHEN LUDLUM and LUISA SY is GRANTED.

 

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, ATTORNEY is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order on the appropriate judicial council form 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: 5

CIV537370     LOUIS A. LIBERTY VS. LIBERTY, OTTO & GUILLEN

 

 

LOUIS A. LIBERTY                       DAVID H. SCHWARTZ

alexander a. guillen                   alexander a. guillen

 

 

motion to consolidate                 

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff, in case CIV537370, unopposed Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.  Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1048(a).  The three cases at issue, Louis Liberty v. Liberty, Otto & Guillen, et. al. (CIV537370), 6450 Motors LLC v. Louis Liberty & Assoc., APC, et. al. (16CIV01192), and Hamcor Inc. v. Louis Liberty & Assoc., et. al. (CIV538486), appear to involve commons questions of law and/or fact, and thus consolidation will promote judicial economy and efficiency.  As no trial dates have been set, any resulting prejudice appears minimal.  Moreover, the motion is unopposed.  Accordingly, the Court orders the three cases consolidated for all purposes.

 

The lead case shall be Louis Liberty v. Liberty, Otto & Guillen, et. al. (CIV537370).

 

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: 6

CIV538486     HAMCOR INC. VS. LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

 

 

6450 MOTORS, LLC.                      pro/per

alexander guillen                      alexander a. guillen

 

 

to trail motion to consolidate set on case civ537370

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff, in case CIV537370, unopposed Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.  Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1048(a).  The three cases at issue, Louis Liberty v. Liberty, Otto & Guillen, et. al. (CIV537370), 6450 Motors LLC v. Louis Liberty & Assoc., APC, et. al. (16CIV01192), and Hamcor Inc. v. Louis Liberty & Assoc., et. al. (CIV538486), appear to involve commons questions of law and/or fact, and thus consolidation will promote judicial economy and efficiency.  As no trial dates have been set, any resulting prejudice appears minimal.  Moreover, the motion is unopposed.  Accordingly, the Court orders the three cases consolidated for all purposes.

 

The lead case shall be Louis Liberty v. Liberty, Otto & Guillen, et. al. (CIV537370).

 

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, May 25, 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

CIV538042     STEVEN MATULAC VS. ARSALAN AHANI, ET AL.

 

 

STEVEN MATULAC                         DANE evy

A. AHANI, DDS, MD, INC.                 MICHAEL KOWALSKI

 

 

Motion for Reconsideration OF COURTS ORDER ON MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant’s  Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED. The trial date is re-scheduled to September 5, 2017 @ 9:00 a.m. and the mandatory settlement conference is re-scheduled to August 24, 2017 @ 9:30 a.m. All discovery cut off dates will comport with the new trial date.

 

 



 

 

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, May 25, 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-CLJ-00575     VIDA CAPITAL GROUP, LLC. vs. MASTAR PROFESSIONAL

                    CORP, et al.

 

 

VIDA CAPITAL GROUP, LLC.                Brian P. Rigonan

MASTAR PROFESSIONAL CORP                BRECK E. MILDE

 

 

Motion for preliminary injunction

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion for preliminary injunction filed by Cross-Complainant Acumentum Penny Lane, LLC and individual Cross-Complainant Mingcha Kuang, Li Guo Min, Anthan Weichaun He, Lizi Hui, Hua Bin He is DENIED.  In short, there is an adequate remedy at law:  damages.

 

While Opposing Party Vida Capital Group LLC discusses evidentiary issues in its opposition, no formal evidentiary objections have been filed and the argument in the opposition is not sufficiently specific to permit a ruling on the admissibility of any specific proffered fact.  Accordingly, any such objections are OVERRULED.   

 

Cross-complainants have filed a separate document containing 24 specific evidentiary objections.  Objections 1-2 are SUSTAINED, Objection 3 is OVERRULED, Objection 4-6 are SUSTAINED, Objection 7-8 are OVERRULED, Objection 9-14 are SUSTAINED, Objections 15-19 are OVERULED, Objection 20-21 are OVERRULED, Objection 22 is SUSTAINED, Objection 23 is OVERRULED, Objection 24 is OVERRULED.

 

First and foremost, the alleged trespass at issue relates exclusively to specific lots in a residential mobile home park that are offered to the public for rent and for which the amount of rent charged is potentially subject to the East Palo Alto rent control law.  Clearly damages is an adequate remedy for any loss of use.

 

Second, it is not clear that Cross-complaints are suffering any amount of damage for the alleged loss of use of the lots in question.  It is the court’s understanding that while this dispute is pending, rent payments are being deposited pursuant to the interpleader and will be released to Cross-Complainants if they are determined to be the owner’s entitled to such rent.   Cross-complainants have offered no evidence or argument that the rent placed in the interpleader will not adequately compensate them for their alleged loss of use.

 


 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County