October 22, 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

 

OCTOBER 23, 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 458258       DAVID MELCNHER VS. ELIZABETH KARNAZES

 

 

DAVID MELCHNER                        PRO/PER

ELIZABETH KARNAZES                    PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE MEMORANDUM OF COSTS ON APPEAL AND/OR TO TAX COSTS OF CROSS-DEFENDANT JOHN J. HARTFORD AND HIS ATTORNEY ALBERT LEE BY ELIZABETH KARNAZES

 

 

·         Defendant/Cross-Complainant ELIZABETH KARNAZES’ Motion to Strike/Tax Costs on Appeal is DENIED. 

 

·         The filing fee of $390.00 is recoverable pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.278(d)(1)(A), and in her Reply, Karnazes withdraws her objection to this item of costs.

 

·         The cost of the clerk’s transcript in the amount of $215.00 is recoverable pursuant to CRC Rule 8.278(d)(1)(B).  John J. Hartford’s counsel provides a Clerk’s Certificate Re: Estimated Cost of Preparing Clerk’s Transcript supporting the amount claimed.  (See Decl. of Albert Lee, Exhibit 5.)  The Court rejects Karnazes’ contention that Hartford was required to borrow her copy instead of obtaining a copy of his own considering the longstanding animosity between the parties in this matter.

 

·         The printing and binding of Hartford’s responding brief, which cost $127.00 for twelve copies total (including nine court copies that needed to be velobound), is reasonable and recoverable under CRC Rule 8.278(d)(1)(E). 

 

·         Unlike trial court costs, the cost of service of papers by mail (here $6.58) is a recoverable item of appellate costs.  CRC Rule 8.278(d)(1)(D); Lubetzky v. Friedman (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1350, 1357-1358. 

 

·         Transmission of papers to the Court of Appeal, for a total of $495.00, is reasonable and recoverable under CRC Rule 8.278(d)(1)(D).  The cost is supported by counsel’s declaration that a messenger service was used.  County of Kern v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1113-1114.

 

·         Prevailing 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

2

CIV 494058       FRANCISCO CARRASCAL VS. DEANNA AVAKIAN, ET AL.

 

 

FRANCISCO CARRASCAL                   PRO/PER

DEANNA AVAKIAN                        MARCUS T. BROWN

 

 

MOTION TO DENY DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES BY FRANCISCO CARRASCAL

 

 

·         This matter is continued to January 20, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 10 before the Honorable Gerald Buchwald.  The matter will be heard in conjunction with the underlying attorney’s fees motion, which is already on the calendar.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

3

CIV 519064       JACKIEJO LOPEZ, ET AL. VS. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

                   DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

 

 

JACKIEJO LOPEZ                        PRO/PER

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPT.

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEPOSITION BY JACKIEJO LOPEZ

 

 

·         Plaintiff JackieJo Lopez’s unopposed motion to reschedule the October 13, 2014 deposition to a date after November 15, 2014 is DENIED without prejudice.  Plaintiff has failed to file a Proof of Service showing that the motion was served on Defendant’s counsel in compliance with CCP §§ 1005 and 1013.

 

·         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 524787       WILLIAM D. BRICE, Ph.D.  VS.  MENLO COLLEGE, INC.

 

 

WILLIAM D. BRICE PH.D.                CHARLES G. WILLIAMS

MENLO COLLEGE, INC.                   KATHERINE S. CATLOS

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE AT DEPOSITION AND SANCTIONS FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR BY MENLO COLLEGE

 

 

·         Defendant Menlo College, Inc.’s unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff William D. Brice’s Deposition is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2025.450.  Defendant did not appear at the scheduled deposition on September 16, 2014 nor did they object to the deposition. 

 

·         Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED, and monetary sanctions will be imposed on the Plaintiff.  Defendant requested $2,619.95 in sanctions.  This amount took into account the anticipated time to prepare a reply, however Defendant did not file an opposition.  Thus, the amount should be reduced by the number of hours anticipated to prepare the reply multiplied by the billable rate of $190.00 per hour.     

 

·         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

5

CIV 526822       JOHN J. HARTFORD VS. ELIZABETH KARNAZES

 

 

JOHN J. HARTFORD                      ALBERT LEE

ELIZABETH KARNAZES                    PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JOHN J. HARTFORD TO FULLY AND COMPLETELY RESPOND, WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND FOR SANCTIONS BY ELIZABETH KARNAZES

 

 

·         Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is DENIED.  Defendant failed to include a proper separate statement pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345.  Defendant’s separate statement does not include the text of the interrogatories and the separate statement was further untimely filed.  Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345; CCP § 2030.300(c). 

 

·         Here, Plaintiff filed an amended separate statement on September 9, 2014.  However, neither the amended separate statement nor the original separate statement adheres to the requirements of CRC 3.1345(c).  Defendant failed to include the text of the interrogatories within the separate statement.  Attaching the interrogatories to the separate statement and “incorporating them by reference” is not sufficient under the rules.  The separate statement is designed to provide the Court with a single document that contains everything the Court needs to rule on the motion.  Defendant’s separate statements do not contain everything needed to rule on the motion. 

 

·         Defendant also failed to adequately meet and confer with Plaintiff prior to bringing this motion.  CCP §§ 2016.040 and 2030.300(b).  Defendant provided no evidence of her attempts to meet and confer other than her own declaration.  Plaintiff declared that Defendant did not attempt to meet and confer and provided a letter to support his contention that he invited Defendant to meet and confer but did not hear back from Defendant.  (Exhibit 2).  On this record, it appears that Defendant did not sufficiently meet and confer with Plaintiff before bringing this motion.  These are sufficient reasons to deny this motion. 

 

·         Defendant’s arguments regarding the vast majority of these allegedly deficient responses are also unavailing.  Contrary to Defendant’s vague assertions, it appears that Plaintiff provided timely responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, which were verified. Defendant has failed to articulate the reasons further responses should be ordered other than to assert a general claim that the responses are inadequate, evasive and unresponsive.

 

·         Pursuant to CCP § 2030.300(d), sanctions must be imposed on Defendant for bringing an unsuccessful motion to compel further without substantial justification or other circumstances making the imposition of a sanction unjust.

 

·         Prevailing 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

6

CIV 527902       JOHN E. FERRY VS. LAURA J. WONS

 

 

JOHN E. FERRY                         PRO/PER

LAURA WONS                            PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR STRIKE, IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FERRY’S COMPLAINT IN EQUITY TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND FOR DAMAGES BY LAURA WONS

 

·         Defendant has attempted to file a Request for Judicial Notice, but that document is defective and the request is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437(b); Evid. Code §§ 452 and 453).

 

·         The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.  For judgment on the pleadings, Defendant may not introduce extrinsic evidence in support of the motion such as Defendant Wons’ Declaration.  The Court is limited to examining only the Complaint and matters of judicial notice.  Neither the Complaint nor any judicially noticeable matter demonstrates that the allegations of fraud or mistake are untrue. 

 

·         Defendant’s alternative argument that the Complaint is barred by res judicata lacks merit because the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to judgments obtained by fraud.  (Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239-40.)  Since the Complaint alleges that the previous judgment was obtained by fraud, the face of the Complaint does not reveal a res judicata defense.

 

·         Defendant’s argument of laches fails because laches is a question of fact.

 

·         To the extent Defendant makes a nonstatutory, unspecific “Motion to Dismiss,” the motion is denied.  Defendant’s motion resembles a motion for summary judgment.  That motion would be denied for Defendant’s failure to comply with Code of Civ. Proc. § 437c and the California Rules of Court that apply to motions for summary judgment.

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court.  Thereafter, Plaintiff shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the above ruling, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

7

CIV 528846       ASLAM ALI VS. FEROZ BAROLIA

 

 

ASLAM ALI                             KARIM S. MANJI

FEROZ BAROLIA                         VINOD NICHANI

 

 

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR ASLAM ALI BY KARIM SHAWN MANJI

 

 

·         Counsel Karim Shawn Manji’s unopposed Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Aslam Ali is DENIED without prejudice pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362(a)(c)(e) [mandatory use of all of the required forms] and Rule 3.1362(d) [service on the client and all parties who have appeared]. 

 

·         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

8

CIV 528860       ROSEMARY N. CHUKWUDEBE VS. PONGSRI LU, ET AL.

 

 

ROSEMARY N. CHUKWUDEBE                PRO/PER

CHRISTOPHER PIRRONE                   CHRISTOPHER PIRRONE

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of CHUKWUDEBE BY CHRISTOPHER PIRRONE, DAVID PIRRONE AND LAW OFFICES OF PIRRONE & PIRONNE, LLP

 

 

·         This matter is moot.  A First Amended Complaint was filed on October 17, 2014.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

9

CIV 529566       CHRISTOPHER MORROW VS. FIREEYE, INC.

 

 

CHRISTOPHER MORROW                    JOHN L. FLEGEL

FIREEYE, INC.                         DAVID LISI

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of MORROW BY FIREEYE, INC.

 

 

·         This matter is moot.  The First Amended Complaint was filed on October 17, 2014.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

10

CLJ 526767       WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS. MICHELLE L. SARTE

 

 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.                JON O. BLANDA

MICHELLE L. SARTE                     JOHN FU

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY - FIRST SET: FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN ORDER DEEMING THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS SPECIFIED IN PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AS ADMITTED BY WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

 

 

·         Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Discovery – First Set: Form Interrogatories is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b).  Defendant shall provide verified responses, without objection, within fifteen days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order.  

 

·         Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s unopposed Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of the Matters Specified in Request for Admissions as Admitted is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b).  All those matters set forth in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions [Set 1], dated June 26, 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.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

11

CLJ 527810       PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC VS. KRISTINE

                   CASIANO

 

 

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC    KRISTEN L. BRINKERHOFF

KRISTINE CASIANO                      DAVID S. ZALOB

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR AWARD OF SANCTIONS BY KRISTINE CASIANO

 

 

·         Defendant Kristine Casiano’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2031.300(b).  Plaintiff shall provide verified responses, without objection, within fifteen days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order.  

 

·         Defendant Kristine Casiano’s Motion for an Award of Sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2031.300(c).  Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $500.00 to be paid forthwith.   

 

·         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.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:01

12

CLJ 210147       PHILIP MELNICK VS. ANECIA BATES, ET AL.

 

 

PHILIP MELNICK                        MICHAEL J. RAIFSNIDER

ANECIA BATES                          PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF ANECIA BATES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY PHILIP MELNICK

 

 

·         Plaintiff Philip Melnick’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Anecia Bates is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2025.450(a).  Defendant did not appear at the scheduled deposition on October 14, 2014 nor did she object to the deposition after proper service of the deposition notice. 

 

·         Plaintiff Philip Melnick’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2025.450(g)(1), and monetary sanctions will be imposed on the Defendant.  Plaintiff requested $1,735.00 in sanctions.  This amount took into account the anticipated time to draft a reply and appear at oral argument, however Defendant did not file an opposition.  Therefore, the amount of sanctions awarded is reduced to $1,135.00 against Defendant Bates.

 

·         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.

 


 

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

 

OCTOBER 23, 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 520728       JOANNE L. THOMAS-SMITH VS. TOWN OF ATHERTON, ET AL.

 

 

JOANNE L. THOMAS-SMITH                WILLIAM R. RAPOPORT

TOWN OF ATHERTON                      WILLIAM B. CONNERS

 

 

MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF BY JOANNE L. THOMAS-SMITH

 

 

·         The Petition is DENIED.  The Petitioner is already receiving the requested grievance remedy as evidenced by the 1-31-14 and 2-6-14 settlement agreement. This is what was sought by the original petition.  The current request goes beyond the scope of what was sought in the original petition.  The Court cannot substitute its discretion for the negotiated terms reflected in the settlement.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

2:00

2

CIV 528792       MAURO ALVAYERO CRUZ, ET AL. VS. SIERRA CORPORATE

                   MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

 

 

MAURO ALVAYERO CRUZ                   SHIRLEY E. GIBSON

SIERRA CORPORATE MANAGEMENT, INC.     TERRY R. DOWDALL

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of CRUZ BY SIERRA CORPORATE MANAGEMENT, INC. AND TRAILER RANCHO ASSOCIATES

 

 

·         Defendants Sierra Corporate Management, Inc. and Trailer Rancho Associates’ Request for Judicial Notice is:

 

o  GRANTED as to the San Mateo County Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance; and

 

o  DENIED as to the remaining documents.  See Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Superior Court (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1191-1192.

 

·         Defendants Sierra Corporate Management, Inc. and Trailer Rancho Associates’ Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED in part and SUSTAINED in part as follows:

 

o   OVERRULED as to the 1st Cause of Action for Violation of the Mobilehome Residency Law.  Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a violation of Civil Code Section 798.17(d) by alleging that Defendants used limited duration reductions in rental rate to induce homeowners to sign long-term leases claimed to be exempt under Civil Code Section 798.17.  A reasonable interpretation of the addendum rent/“promotional rent” credit is a reduction in the compensation for the use of the homeowner’s individual space and common area.  See Cacho v. Boudreau (2007) 40 Cal.4th 341, 349 (“rent” for purposes of the Mobilehome Resident Law is compensation for the use of the resident's individual space and common area).  Accordingly, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the addendum rent/“promotional rent” credit was an impermissible “rental rate reduction,” not a permissible “gift of value.”  Plaintiffs have also adequately pleaded a violation of Civil Code Sections 798.74.5 and 798.19.  Defendants contend there was no violation of Civil Code Sections 798.74.5 and 798.19, but their contention is based on factual arguments outside of the pleadings.

 

o   OVERRULED as to the 2nd Cause of Action for Violation of the San Mateo County Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance.  Defendants have not shown that the Mobilehome Residency Law preempts Section 1.30.030 or Section 1.30.100 of the Ordinance as applied to the alleged lease agreements.  Additionally, the factual allegations of the Complaint are insufficient to conclusively establish that application of Section 1.30.100 substantially impairs the alleged lease agreements.

 

o   OVERRULED as to the 3rd Cause of Action for Breach of Contract.  Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that the lease agreements contain ambiguous rental rate provisions, and the lease agreements should be reasonably interpreted to mean that the actual rent charged at the beginning of the tenancy, rather than the “beginning monthly rent,” constitutes the base rent for purposes of rent increases.  Defendants’ own Demurrer demonstrates that litigation on this cause of action should proceed beyond the pleading stage to permit the parties to present extrinsic evidence relevant to resolving the ambiguity in the lease agreements.

 

o   SUSTAINED WITH 15 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 4th Cause of Action for Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.  As alleged, the breach of implied covenant claim is entirely duplicative of the claim for breach of contract.

 

o   OVERRULED as to the 5th Cause of Action for Violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.  Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a claim for unlawful business practices.  These allegedly unlawful business practices include, among other things, Defendants’ use of illegal limited duration reductions in rental rate to induce residents to sign long-term leases claimed to be exempt under Civil Code Section 798.17.

 

o   OVERRULED as to the 6th Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment.  Courts, including the First District of the California Court of Appeal, have continued to recognize an independent cause of action for unjust enrichment.  See e.g. Hirsch v. Bank of America (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 708, 722.

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT BY SIERRA CORPORATE MANAGEMENT, INC. AND TRAILER RANCHO ASSOCIATES

 

 

·         Defendants Sierra Corporate Management, Inc. and Trailer Rancho Associates’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint is DENIED.  Defendants move to strike the “claim for punitive damages.”  (Not. at 2:1-2.)  However, Plaintiffs have not asserted a claim for punitive damages; Plaintiffs are seeking statutory penalties under Civil Code Section 798.86(a).

  

 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

 

 

·         Appear.  

 

_____________________________________________________________________

2:00

3

CIV 530553       JOEY WILLIAMS VS. SUN RISE TOWING, ET AL.

 

 

JOEY WILLIAMS                         PRO/PER

SUN RISE TOWING

 

 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BY JOEY WILLIAMS

 

 

·         The unopposed Order to Show Cause Re:  Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.  Service upon the DMV (late, by mail) and Sun Rise Towing (no indication who was served on their behalf) is defective.  

 

_____________________________________________________________________

2:00

4

CIV 530550       KAUSHAL KANTAWALA VS. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

 

 

KAUSHAL KANTAWALA                     MARSANNE WEESE

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

 

 

HEARING RE: WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY KAUSHAL KANTAWALA

 

 

·         Vacated at the request of the moving party.   

 


 

 

 


POSTED:  3:10 PM

 

© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County