April 19, 2014
Law & Motions Tentative Rulings
  • Law and Motion Department Tentative Ruling Line:  (650) 363-1882
  • 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 LISA A. NOVAK

Department 13

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2C

 

APRIL 17, 2014

 

IF YOU INTEND TO APPEAR ON ANY CASE ON THIS CALENDAR YOU MUST DO THE FOLLOWING:

1.      YOU MUST CALL (650) 363-1882 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.  

 

Case                  Title / Nature of Case

9:00

1

CIV 506319    PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

                       VS.

                       PRECISION ENGINEERING, INC.

 

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY                                    GREGORY B. MOUROUX

PRECISION ENGINEERING, INC.                                              KEITH R. GILLETTE

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S THRID AMENDED COMPLAINT BY PRECISION ENGINEERING, INC., CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO; MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT BY PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY; DEMURRER TO 3rd Amended COMPLAINT of PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY BY PRECISION ENGINEERING, INC., CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO

 

·         Moot.  Minutes from April 3, 2014 reflect that a settlement was reached as to all parties, and the case is next scheduled for an OSC in re Dismissal on June 24, 2014. 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 512676    COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ISSUANCE OF AN INSPECTION

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO                JOHN C. BEIERS

615-11TH AVENUE MENLO PARK, CA

 

 

MOTION CHALLENGING ALL ORDERS IN THIS CASE; BY HARVEY BLIGHT

 

  • Defendant Harvey Blight‘s Motion entitled “Challenging All Orders in this Case; as improperly heard without a jury; forcing litigant to file an appeal; for petition for Administrative Writ; Affidavit in support of change of venue and more/disqualification; of assigned judge and reverse the orders on appeal via an administrative writ for a jury trial; Petition to transfer case to federal court a.s.a.p. “is DENIED. The moving papers cite to no statutory or case authority in support of Mr. Blight’s many requests. It is difficult for the court to discern what specific requests he is making. He has made no showing in support of any claim for an administrative writ.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 513258    TRAVELERS EXPRESS COMPANY, INC., ET AL. VS. SURESH C. JANDIAL, ET AL.

 

 

TRAVELERS EXPRESS COMPANY, INC.                                    ROBERT L. RENTTO

SURESH C. JANDIAL

 

 

DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of TRAVELERS EXPRESS COMPANY, INC. BY SATYA PAL JANDIAL TR, SUSHMA JANDIAL TR, THE JANDIAL FAMILY TRUST

 

 

  • Demurrer to the First through Fifth Causes of action is overruled. The automatic stay operates in favor of the bankruptcy petitioner. Filing the petition does not automatically impose a stay of judicial proceedings as to the petitioner’s co-defendants. (U.S. v. Dos Cabezas Corp. (9th Cir.1993) 995 F.2d 1486, 1491.) Further, the demurring defendants lack standing to demur to the First through Third causes of action, which are not asserted against them.

 

  • The demurrer for misjoinder of parties is overruled.  A demurrer for misjoinder is proper when plaintiffs lack a sufficient unity of interest (Code of Civ. Proc. § 378), or there is no common question of law or fact as to one of the defendants (Id. §379).  Neither the face of the pleadings nor any judicially noticeable matter supports the argument of misjoinder.

 

  • Demurrer to the Seventh through Eleventh Causes of Action is overruled.  There is no other action pending between Plaintiff in this action and the demurring defendants. The Bankruptcy Trustee has exclusive jurisdiction to pursue a claim for fraudulent conveyance against the bankruptcy debtor. That rule of law does not preclude Plaintiff from pursuing claims of fraudulent conveyance against non-bankruptcy debtors such as the demurring defendants.

 

  • If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff 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 to provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 516730    ELEANOR RAKONITZ, ET AL. VS. MARIETTA FULTON, ET AL.

 

 

ELEANOR RAKONITZ                                                               J. CRAIG CRAWFORD

MARIETTA FULTON                                                                 DAVID L. ACH

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COMPLAINT of RAKONITZ FILED BY ELEANOR RAKONITZ, DAVID EUGENE RAKONITZ

 

·         Moot.  Notice of settlement filed April 07, 2014.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 519197    BARBARA GRAMKAN, ET AL. VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

 

 

BARBARA GRAMKAN                                                              GARRY COHEN

FORD MOTOR COMPANY                                                      PAULA T. B. SARTI

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL TO COMPLY WITH DEFENDANT’S CAL. CIV. PROC. 1985.3 SUBPOENA BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY, SERRAMONTE FORD, INC.

 

 

  • The Court’s computer indicates that on March 18, 2014 Confidential Information for Judges’ Eyes Only was received and forwarded to Dept. No. 13. After an extensive search of chambers, clerk’s office and file stacks, this material was not located. The Court does have the Reply materials however, which were likewise lodged under seal with the court.

 

  • Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena is continued to May 14, 2014. Moving Defendants shall re-submit such Confidential Information directly to Dept. No. 13 (Clerk Sandy Harris) on or before May 1, 2014. There shall be no further briefing.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 526532    PHILIP CAULFIELD VS. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

 

 

PHILIP CAULFIELD                                                                   CHARLES HELLSTROM

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.                                                        PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT BY SLS SERVICING COMPANY, LLC, BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON & DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of CAULFIELD BY BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, SLS SERVICING COMPANY, LLC

 

·          Moot.  First Amended Complaint filed March 27, 2014. 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CLJ 442978    CALFIN HOLDINGS, LLC VS. LISA SHELTON-BRYAN

 

 

CALFIN HOLDINGS, LLC                                                           ELIZABETH A. BLEIER

LISA SHELTON-BRYAN

 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY CALFIN HOLDINGS, LLC

 

 

·         Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the default judgment against

Defendant is GRANTED, as the default judgment was entered as a result of mistake or excusable neglect on the part of prior counsel for Plaintiff.  CCP 473(b0

 

·          If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. The moving party shall 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 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

8

CLJ 517674    HARVEY BLIGHT VS. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ET AL.

 

 

HARVEY BLIGHT                                                                      PRO/PER

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO                                                        EUGENE WHITLOCK

 

 

MOTION RE: 7TH AMENDMENT ISSUES BY HARVEY BLIGHT

 

 

·         Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for mediation or arbitration is

denied as Plaintiff has not filed a valid proof of service as required by CCP 1010

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:01

9

CLJ 209389    TEMALETI LATU VS. NELLIE M. BRENNER

 

 

TEMALETI LATU                                                                      PRO/PER

NELLIE M. BRENNER                                                               PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

 

 

·         Defendant Nellie Maria Brenner’s Motion to Quash is DENIED without prejudice. 

 

·          Under San Mateo County Superior Court Local Rule 3.15, all Motions to Quash in Unlawful Detainer actions must be served and filed not less than 3 or more than 7 days after filing the notice. This Motion to Quash was originally set on April 10, 2014 for a hearing on April 17, 2013. This would provide a minimum of 3 days’ notice [and not more than 7 days]. However, the proof of service states that the motion was served by mail on plaintiff on April 10, 2014. Five (5) additional calendar days are required for mailing pursuant to CCP 1005. This notice is technically insufficient under our local rule. A minimum 3 days’ notice +5 additional days for mailing means that the first day this motion could have been heard is April 18, 2014.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 


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

 

APRIL 17, 2014

 

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

 you must call (650) 363-4511 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 527353    JOSEPH VELLA, ET AL. VS. YEVA, INC., ET AL.

 

 

JOSEPH VELLA                                                                         ADAM M. RAPP

YEVA, INC.

 

 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BY JOSEPH VELLA, GAIL VELLA

 

 

·         Appear for argument.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


2:00

2

CIV 527658    PUTNAM BUICK, INC. VS. DEBRA BOWEN, ET AL.

 

 

PUTNAM BUICK, INC.                                                              LAWRENCE A. JACOBSON

DEBRA BOWEN

 

 

MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE BY PUTNAM BUICK, INC.

 

 

·         The served, but unopposed, Motion for Peremptory Writ of Mandate is GRANTED. Plaintiff has satisfied its burden of proof under CCP 1085 and no contrary showing has been offered.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


2:00

3

CIV 463423     ELVIA JUAREZ VS. EDWARD NOVAK, ET AL.

 

 

ELVIA JUAREZ                                                                          JEROD HENDRICKSON

EDWARD NOVAK

 

 

MOTION FOR RELIEF

 

 

·         The Petition is DENIED. There is an inadequate demonstration of a fraudulent transfer with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud a creditor of the debtor. Civil Code 3439.04.  Also, the Dorothy Novak Trust and Anthony Novak are not before this court.  See also Krauss v Strop (1941) 47 Cal App 2d 452.  Further,  there has been no adequate showing that the property in question is in fact community property.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

 

POSTED PROBATE LATE :  3:30 PM

© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County