December 9, 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 jonathan e. karesh

Department 20

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 8C

 

Thursday, December 8, 2016

 

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-00268     DONALD JOSEPH KENNEDY vs. MUATH "MATT" ZGHOUL, et al

 

 

DONALD JOSEPH KENNEDY                  CARY KLETTER

MUATH "MATT" ZGHOUL                    EDWARD C. SINGER, JR.

 

 

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion For a Protective Order Staying Discovery is GRANTED IN PART.  It is granted as to discovery directed against Defendant Zghoul and denied as to discovery directed against any other party. No other party is the subject of a pending criminal proceeding regarding the incident that gave rise to this action. Plaintiff does not demonstrate how any party can conduct meaningful discovery against Defendant Zghoul without running afoul of his right against self-incrimination. 

 

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, prevailing party 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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 



9:00

Line: 2

16-CIV-01472     GREG SUMMERLIN, et al. vs. ROBERTA L. ROSE

 

 

GREG SUMMERLIN                         RYAN J. VLASAK

ROBERTA L. ROSE

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE Portions Of The Plaintiffs' Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant Roberta Rose’s Motion to Strike is DENIED. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 are sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.

 

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-CLJ-00514     ANDREW BARE vs. MARY RAGO

 

 

ANDREW BARE                            Pro/PER

MARY RAGO                              Colleen COEN

 

 

DEMURRER to COMPLAINT OF ANDREW BARE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The demurrer is overruled. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff contracted with Mary Rago “as trustee” and that she “as trustee” breached the agreement . (Complaint para. BC-1a & BC-2.) Defendant is not being sued in her individual capacity.

 

The agreement, purportedly attached to the Complaint, shows that Plaintiff contracted with “Robert Rago, as trustee.” It is the Trust, not the trustee, that is the contracting party, and it is the Trust, not the trustee, that would alone be liable for a breach. The proper defendant is the Trust. Since a trust can act only through its trustee, the named defendant must be the current trustee.

 

The face of the pleadings does not disclose that Defendant Mary Rago is not a current trustee of the trust. Therefore, the pleading does not disclose that Mary Rago is the wrong defendant, regardless of which trustee signed the contract or breached it.

 

Defendant shall file and serve an Answer no later than 15 days after service of the notice of entry of order.

 

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, prevailing party 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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 



9:00

Line: 4

CIV533328     SIX4THREE, LLC VS. FACEBOOK, INC.

 

 

SIX4THREE, LLC                         BASIL P. FTHENAKIS

FACEBOOK, INC.                         JULIE E. SCHWARTZ

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Facebook, Inc. to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, and for sanctions, is addressed as follows: 

 

As to Request Nos. 35, 39-43, 47-52, 65-66, and 68-70, Facebook has agreed to produce responsive documents, and for some of these Requests served supplemental responses prior to the hearing on this motion.  The parties, however, continue to dispute custodians and search terms.

 

As was stated previously, document relevance must be balanced against the undue burden of production.  Facebook has agreed to search for responsive documents using eight custodians, but Plaintiff wants five more custodians (for a total of 13).  Plaintiff also contends Facebook is not using all of the agreed-upon search terms. 

 

As the parties have been requested to do with respect to Plaintiff’s Request Nos. 5 and 25 (in Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One), the parties are ordered to further meet and confer and agree, by Dec. 22, 2016, on which custodians and search terms Facebook will use in its document search.  As part of that discussion, the parties shall also consider time/date limitations so as to reduce the burden of production. 

 

If the parties reach an agreement, then Facebook shall serve further responses to the above Requests and produce any additional responsive documents (per the agreed-upon custodians and search terms) by January 26, 2017.  If the parties cannot agree, then they shall jointly submit to the Court, by Jan. 5, 2017, their competing proposals as to the custodians and search terms they contend should be used.  Any submission to the Court shall be accompanied by a Facebook declaration stating, to the extent possible, the number/volume of documents that would need to be reviewed under each side’s proposal.  The Court will then decide whether to compel a further response and production, which may mean choosing one or neither of the proposals. 

 

The Court will consider sanctions against any party not meeting and conferring in good faith to narrow the Requests. 

 

Although the Court previously provided the parties a different deadline to meet and confer regarding Requests Nos. 5 and 25 (in Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One), the parties should include Nos. 5 and 25 in the above-referenced meet and confer, and to the extent they need to submit any proposals to the Court regarding Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, should do so in one filing, by the above dates.   

The motion is MOOT as to Request Nos. 36-37, and 67.  See Reply (first Parag.). 

The motion is DENIED as to Request Nos. 38 and 44-46.  Given that the Games Group API and Parse app were deprecated/retired long after closure of the Friends Photos Endpoint and long after Plaintiff filed this case, the burden of a further response and production outweighs the relevance. 

The motion is DENIED as to Request Nos. 53-55 on grounds that the burden of a further response and production outweighs the relevance.  This ruling, however, does not alter the Court’s prior Order instructing the parties to meet and confer as to Plaintiff’s Requests Nos. 5 and 25. 

 

As to Request Nos. 56-64, the motion is GRANTED-IN-PART. As part of the parties’ meet and confer discussed above, the parties shall agree on language narrowing the above Requests in order to make a response less burdensome.  Facebook shall identify and use in its document search at least one custodian who was involved in and is knowledgeable of the 2007 Facebook Platform launch.  The Court recognizes 2007 is long before Plaintiff became a Facebook developer in 2012.  Given the broad scope of discovery, however, that fact does not preclude discovery from this time frame, so long as it is reasonable in scope and not unduly burdensome.

 

The request for sanctions is DENIED.  The Court finds Defendant acted with substantial justification in responding to Plaintiff’s Requests and opposing this motion.   

 

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, prevailing party 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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 



9:00

Line: 5

CIV534561     MALTBY ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., INC. VS. TJ WARD &

                 ASSOCIATES CONTRACTING, INC., ET AL.

 

 

MALTBY ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., INC.       BRODKIN, ALAN L.

TJ WARD & ASSOCIATES CONTRACTING, INC.

 

 

MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION FOR CONSOLIDATION

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Off calendar as the Motion to Transfer was withdrawn on November 29, 2016.

 



9:00

Line: 6

CIV536248     IBRAHIM MATAR, ET AL. VS. GENESIS BUILDERS, ET AL.

 

 

DOUNYA MATAR                           ROBERT D. FINKLE

JEAN-PAUL LARRIBEROT

 

 

motion for DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT OF DEFT JOHN LEE STEWART

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant John Lee Stewart, Individually, and dba Stewart Associates’ Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. The settlement between Stewart and Plaintiffs is found to be in good faith and that Stewart is entitled to the protection of the Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 877, et seq.

 

It is further ordered that the settlement between Stewart and Plaintiffs shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from making a claim for equitable indemnity, comparative fault indemnity, implied contractual indemnity and contribution against Stewart arising out of this action.

 

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, prevailing party 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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 



9:00

Line: 7

CIV536666     LOIS GIANNONI VS. ANDREW ABRAMS, ET AL.

 

 

LOIS GIANNONI                          PETER J. SHEARE

ANDREW ABRAMS                          EUGENE WEST

 

 

motion to compel DEFENDANT ANDREW ABRAMS TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS TO PLTF'S I) FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL (SET2), II) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET 1)

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion of Plaintiff Lois Giannoni (‘Plaintiff”) to Compel Further Responses and Documents from Defendants Andrew Abrams (“Mr. Abrams”) and Tara Abrams (“Ms. Abrams”), and for Monetary Sanctions, is GRANTED, as follows:

 

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) no. 17.1, and Special Interrogatories (Set One) nos. 21-25, and  Mr. Abrams is ordered to provide further responses, without objections, to these interrogatories.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220(a) requires that each answer shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.  If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.  (C.C.P. § 2030.220(b).) 

 

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) nos. 5, 13, 14, 30, 31 and 34, and Mr. Abrams is ordered to provide further responses to these requests.  As to those requests that seek only non-privileged documents, Mr. Abrams’ objections based on privilege are without merit, and Mr. Abrams is to provide a further response without objections.  Additionally, as to those requests that Mr. Abrams claims seeks documents that are privileged, Mr. Abrams’ responses fail to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240(c), which provides that  the response “shall provide sufficient information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”  (See C.C.P. § 2031.240(c).) 

 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Mr. Abrams to produce documents responsive to Request for Production of Documents nos. 30, 31 and 34, is DENIED without prejudice to bringing a motion to compel compliance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, if necessary, once any and all responsive, non-privileged documents have been identified.

 

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) no. 17.1, and Special Interrogatories (Set One), nos. 12-15, 19 and 20, and Ms. Abrams is ordered to provide further responses, without objections. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220(a) requires that each answer shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.  If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.  (C.C.P. § 2030.220(b).) 

 

Plaintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in part.  The Abrams are ordered to pay Plaintiff $8,496, no later than January 9, 2017.

 

The Abrams’ Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

 

The Abrams are ordered to provide further responses to this discovery no later 15 days after service of the notice of entry of order.

 

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, prevailing party 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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 



9:00

Line: 8

CIV537205     ACSEL HEALTH, LLC VS. CAMPBELL ALLIANCE GROUP, INC.

 

 

ACSEL HEALTH, LLC                      THOMAS M. MCINERNEY

CAMPBELL ALLIANCE GROUP, INC.          JONATHAN EDWARD SOMMER

 

 

motion to compel further Responses to Discovery from Defendant Campbell Alliance Group, Inc

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

On the Court’s own motion, the Motion to Compel Further Responses is continued to January 17, 2016 at 9 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.

 



9:00

Lines: 9 & 10

CIV537488     JOANNA QI CHEN VS. ANDREW CHIU, ET AL.

 

 

JOANNA QI CHEN                         GEORGE KING

DAMIEN QUINN                           Pro/per

 

 

9. demurrer TO COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

By stipulation and order signed on December 6, 2016, the Demurrer is continued to December 29, 2016 at 9 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.

 

 

10. motion to strike plaintiff’s first amended complaint

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

By stipulation and order signed on December 6, 2016, the Motion to Strike is continued to December 29, 2016 at 9 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.

 

 

 



9:00

Line: 11

CIV538259     RYAN STUART STUCKY VS. KIM'S TAE KWON DO ACADEMY, ET al.

 

 

RYAN STUART STUCKY                     JACOB SHAPIRO

KIM'S TAE KWON DO ACADEMY              JAMES M. BARRETT

 

 

motion to compel RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion to compel is moot.  Defendant has provided a response to the discovery.  The request for sanctions is denied. 

 

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

CIV538890     ALESHNI SINGH VS. ALLURA SKIN & LASER CENTER, ET AL.

 

 

ALESHNI SINGH                          TIMOTHY B. BRODERICK

ALLURA SKIN & LASER CENTER             Julie grebel-gavery

 

 

demurrer TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section  430.41(a)(3). Defense counsel’s declaration states that the sole efforts to meet and confer were by letter. (Declaration of Grebel-Gavery, Para. 5 & 6.) The statute, however, explicitly requires that the meet and confer process be “in person or by telephone.”

 

The hearing on the demurrer is continued until December 28, 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 parties are required to file, no later than 7 calendar 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 Court will strike the Demurrer as procedurally improper.

 



9:01

Line: 13

16-UDL-00538   Woodland Park Property Owner LLC vs. Isabel Calderon, et aL.

 

 

Woodland Park Property Owner LLC      TODD ROTHBARD

Isabel Calderon                       Pro/per

 

 

13. Motion for summary JUDGEMENT/ ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant Thalia Alcantar’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code §452(d).

 

Defendant Thalia Alcantar’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendant has met its initial burden under CCP §437c(p)(2) through the declaration of Victor Ramirez regarding plaintiff’s failure to file the required Change in Tenancy/Vacancy Registration Statement with the East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Administration Office.

 

The burden then shifts to plaintiff pursuant to CCP §437c(p)(2) to establish a triable issue of material fact. Plaintiff has met their burden through the declaration of Vanessa Orejel who states that on July 14, 2016, she completed and filed a vacancy registration form with the East Palo Alto Rental Stabilization Program for the subject premises. This creates a triable issue of material facts sufficient to deny the motion for summary judgment.

 

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, prevailing party 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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 



9:01

Lines: 14 & 15

16-UDL-00547     Woodland Park Property Owner LLC vs. Martin Fifita, et al.

 

 

Woodland Park Property Owner LLC      TODD ROTHBARD

Martin Fifita

 

 

14. MOTION TO QUASH

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to Quash by Defendant Martin Fifita is DENIED.

 

Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607 holds that a motion to quash service of process is limited to attacking whether or not the summons and complaint have been validly served and cannot be used to question the propriety of service of the underlying notice nor as a vehicle for resolving issues more appropriately raised by answer or demurrer.  That court specifically held that a motion to quash is not the proper remedy to test whether a complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer or of service of a notice to pay or quit.

 

Defendant shall file a responsive pleading within 5 days of service of the notice of entry of order.

 

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, prevailing party 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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 

15. MOTION TO QUASH

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to Quash by Defendant Mele Fifita is DENIED.

 

Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607 holds that a motion to quash service of process is limited to attacking whether or not the summons and complaint had been validly served and cannot be used to question the propriety of service of the underlying notice nor as a vehicle for resolving issues more appropriately raised by answer or demurrer.  That court specifically held that a motion to quash is not the proper remedy to test whether a complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer or of service of a notice to pay or quit.

 

Defendant shall file a responsive pleading within 5 days of service of the notice of entry of order.

 

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, prevailing party 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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 



9:01

Line: 16

16-UDL-00548     Woodland Park Property Owner LLC vs. Fermin

                    Plancarta, et al.

 

 

Woodland Park Property Owner LLC      TODD ROTHBARD

Fermin Plancarta                      DANIEL SAVER

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to Quash by Defendants Fermin Plancarta and Maria Quiroz is DENIED.

Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal App 4th 607, holds that a motion to quash service of process is limited to attacking whether or not the summons and complaint had been validly served and cannot be used to question the propriety of service of the underlying notice nor as a vehicle for resolving issues more appropriately raised by answer or demurrer. That court specifically held that a motion to quash is not the proper remedy to test whether a complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer or of service of a notice to pay or quit.

 

Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within 5 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order.

 

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, prevailing party 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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 



9:01

Line: 17

16-UDL-00549     Woodland Park Property Owner LLC vs. Maryanne

                    Prather, et al

 

 

Woodland Park Property Owner LLC      TODD ROTHBARD

Maryanne Prather                      pro/per

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to Quash by Defendants Maryanne Praher and Amanda Prather is DENIED.

Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal App 4th 607, holds that a motion to quash service of process is limited to attacking whether or not the summons and complaint had been validly served and cannot be used to question the propriety of service of the underlying notice nor as a vehicle for resolving issues more appropriately raised by answer or demurrer. That court specifically held that a motion to quash is not the proper remedy to test whether a complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer or of service of a notice to pay or quit.

 

Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within 5 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order.

 

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, prevailing party 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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 


 

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 JOHN L. GRANDSAERT

Department 11

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2D

 

Thursday, December 8, 2016

 

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

 you must call (650) 261-5111 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

CIV436164     ANGELA REL VS. PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVices, ET AL.

 

 

ANGELA REL                            david j. franklin

PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES          BETH O. ARNESE

 

 

Re-assignment of complex case

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Counsel to appear.

 



9:00

Line: 2

CIV537912     LISA BARGHAHN VS. MICHAEL THOMAS MARGOLIS

 

 

LISA BARGHAHN                         ANDREW C. PONGRACZ

MICHAEL THOMAS MARGOLIS               THOMAS E. STILL

 

 

Motion to Continue Trial Date

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Stipulated Motion to Vacate and Continue Trial Date is GRANTED.  Trial previously set for May 30, 2017 is vacated and a new trial date is set for June 27, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., in Department PJ.  The previously set Mandatory Settlement Conference date of May 11, 2017 shall remain on calendar.  The discovery cut-off date, including that for expert discovery, and all other calendaring dates shall conform to 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, December 8, 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

Line: 1

16-CIV-01733     MONTE DIABLO LP vs. COLEMAN FAMILY ESTATES, LLC, et al.

 

 

MONTE DIABLO LP                        WILLIAM H.G. NORMAN

COLEMAN FAMILY ESTATES, LLC

 

 

Motion FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The unopposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction has not been demonstrably served.  There is no proof of service showing service in compliance with CCP 1005 on file.  DENIED without prejudice. 

 



2:00

Line: 2

CIV537745     RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT FOR WATER TANK HILL VS.

                 SAN MATEO REAL estate, et al.

 

 

RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT FOR WATER TANK HILL    WINTER KING

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO                    John C. Beiers

 

 

HEARING MOTION TO AUGMENT RECORD/ STRIKE RECORD DOCUMENTS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

APPEAR.

 

 

 


 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County