July 31, 2015
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 JOSEPH C. SCOTT

Department 25

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2G

 

Thursday, July 30, 2015

 

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 512807       VENERANDA ABAD, ET AL. VS. WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING,

                   INC., ET AL

 

 

VENERANDA ABAD                        CHRISTINA KURTZ

WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING, INC          AMY L. FOSCALINA

 

 

MOTION TO TAX DEFENDANT WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS BY PETER QUIAMBAO, ET AL.

 

 

·         Off calendar at the request of the moving parties.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 515707       SANDRA ROSENBERG VS. MERIDIAN BAY HOMEOWNERS

                   ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

 

 

SANDRA ROSENBERG                      SIMON OFFORD

MERIDIAN BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION   RICHARD A. SWENSON

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BY SANDRA ROSENBERG

 

 

  • Plaintiffs Motion to Quash or Modify Deposition Subpoenas, or Alternatively for Protective Order is DENIED.  The subject subpoenas do not seek documents/material that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, other privileged material, or work-product material. Information that falls within Britania Construction’s efforts as a consultant is protected.

 

 

  • Requests for monetary sanctions by each side are DENIED.

 

 

  • 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 517001       GENE CONDON VS. DALAND NISSAN, INC., ET AL

 

 

GENE CONDON                           ALEXANDER A. GUILLEN

DALAND NISSAN, INC.                   DAVID R. SIDRAN

 

 

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR PURSUANT TO C.C.P.

SECTION 473(D) BY GENE CONDON

 

 

 

  • The Court admonishes Plaintiff’s counsel Ian Otto, Michele Tuman, and the law firm of Liberty, Otto & Guillen  for violating CRC Rule 2.108 [lines in papers must be numbered] (See Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities) and Rule 3.1110(f) (requiring hard tabs between exhibits) regarding the Declaration of Michele Tuman. Plaintiff is directed to comply with all Rules of Court for all filings.

 

  • The Court has jurisdiction to consider the motion to correct clerical errors, notwithstanding Defendants’ having appealed the judgment. (Roth v. Marston, (1952) 110 Cal. App. 2d 249, 251 [“neither the power nor the duty [to correct clerical errors] is abrogated or suspended by the pendency of an appeal”].)

 

  • The motion is granted to make the following corrections:

 

     1.   “Corrected Interim Award” at page 1, line 26, is changed to “Corrected Interim Arbitration Award.”

 

     2.   “Exhibit 1” at page 1, line 27, is changed to “Exhibit A.”

 

     3.   “Exhibit 2” at page 2, line 1, is changed to “Exhibit B.”

 

     4.   A copy of the Corrected Interim Arbitration Award shall be attached to the Judgment as Exhibit A.

 

     5.   A copy of the Final Award Order Re Claimant's Motion For Attorneys' Fees and Costs shall be attached to the Judgment as Exhibit B.

 

  • The motion is denied to the extent Plaintiff moves that the Judgment expressly incorporate by reference the Corrected Interim Arbitration Award or Final Award Order Re Claimant's Motion For Attorneys' Fees and Costs. (Notice of Motion does not set forth any explanation why the lack of incorporation is erroneous).

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff 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. 

 

 

 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AFTER ARBITRATION AWARD AND JUDGMENT BY GENE CONDON

 

 

·         The motion for attorney’s fees is granted in the amount of $34,000.00

 

·         Plaintiff is the prevailing party on the petition to confirm arbitration award. The petition and Defendants’ cross-demand to vacate or modify the award presented numerous issues not typically present in a petition to confirm an award.

 

 

·         Plaintiffs were justified in incurring more than a typical number of hours to brief their response to Defendant’s Opposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel describe themselves as possessing a high level of expertise and experience concerning litigating car-dealership claims. Given that expertise and specialty, Plaintiff’s counsel would be expected to be familiar with the arbitration-related issues relating to automobile financing contracts. 

 

·         On that basis, the Court concludes that the number of hours incurred for the petition and opposition to Defendants’ cross-petition was somewhat excessive. The entries on the billing statements are not sufficiently detailed for the Court to determine that the quantity of hours for research, drafting, writing, and redrafting were reasonable. The Court concludes that 80 hours would be a reasonable number of hours for the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.

 

·         Notwithstanding the expertise in consumer automobile claims (Declaration of Tuman ¶¶5-12; Declaration of Otto ¶¶ 5-10), the petition to confirm arbitration award had less to do with that expertise than with the procedural issues of confirming, vacating, or modifying the award. The issues were not fundamental, but they also were not complex. For purposes of the petition to confirm arbitration only, the court applies a reasonable hourly rate of $425.

 

·         Based on 80 hours at $425 per hour, the lodestar amount is $34,000.00.

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff 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

4

CIV 523248       JIM BAKA, ET AL. VS. CITY OF BELMONT

 

 

JIM BAKA                              DAVID M. KING

CITY OF BELMONT                       HOLLY O. WHATLEY

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY JIM BAKA, ET AL.

 

  • The Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs Baka and Coleman is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §473(a)(1) and California’s liberal public policy of permitting amendments to pleadings. [Nestlé v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal 3d 920, 939].

 

  • Moving parties shall file and serve a 2nd Amended Complaint,  consistent with their proposed 2nd Amended Complaint, no later than August 14, 2015.

 

  • Any request for a trial continuance should be directed to the department of the presiding judge.

 

  • 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 525485       DORSETTA CAGLE VS. FREUTEL ROOFING, INC., ET AL.

 

 

DORSETTA CAGLE                        JEFFREY R. WINDSOR

FREUTEL ROOFING, INC                  COLETTE F. STONE

 

 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FREUTAL'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO COMPEL JOINDER BY DORSETTA CAGLE

 

 

·         Continued to August 28, 2015 at 9:00a.m. to be heard by Judge Etezadi.

 

 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FREUTEL'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT BY DORSETTA CAGLE

 

 

·         Continued to August 28, 2015 at 9:00a.m. to be heard by Judge Etezadi.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 530026       MARIA ELDA SAN JUAN VS. CHRISTOPHER DEPUY, ET AL

 

 

MARIA ELDA SAN JUAN                   TONY E. CARBALLO

CHRISTOPHER DEPUY                     MICHAEL J. DALEY

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DR. CHEN'S ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY BY CHRISTOPHER  DEPUY, CATHERINE DEPUY

 

 

  • Defendants’ Motion to Compel Dr. Chen’s attendance and testimony at deposition and request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.  Counsel for both Dr. Chen and defendants shall appear with their calendars and be prepared to set a deposition date.  Defendants are awarded sanctions against Dr. Chen in the amount of $540.00 to be paid by Dr. Chen or deducted from his customary fee at the commencement of the deposition.

 

  • 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 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 531403       EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY VS. NATIONAL UNION FIRE

                   INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, PA.

 

 

EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY            IRENE K. YESOWITCH

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO.     KEVIN G MCCURDY

 

 

DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, PA.

 

 

  • Defendant’s Demurrer to the second cause of action (estoppel) is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The allegations do not describe any representations or actions by National Union on which Evanston relied. The allegations remain insufficient.   The case of City of Hollister v. Monterey Ins. Co. (2008) 165  Cal.App. 4th 455 has not persuaded the Court otherwise.  In addition, Plaintiff is alleging estoppel as a means of creating coverage under the National Union policy where none otherwise exists. The Second Amended Complaint expressly states that National Union should be estopped from denying coverage to Beutler. SAC ¶ 37. California case law does not allow the relief that plaintiff is requesting. Coverage cannot arise through estoppel. [Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Richmond (1977) 76 Cal App 3d 645, 653].

 

 

  • If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff 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

CIV 531588       MICHAEL A. RUDER VS. PAUL J. HOEKENGA, ET AL.

 

 

MICHAEL A RUDER                       MARK HAESLOOP

PAUL A HOEKENGA                       PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF PAUL J. HOEKENGA AND THE PMK OF STIRLING MERGERS BY MICHAEL A RUDER

 

 

  • Plaintiff Michael Ruder’s unopposed Motion to Compel Depositions is GRANTED pursuant to CCP§§2025.450(a). Defendant Paul Hoekenga and the Person Most Knowledgeable of Defendant Sterling Mergers & Acquisitions, Inc. are ordered to appear for deposition within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order, at a time to be determined in coordination with Plaintiff’s counsel.

 

  • Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §§2025. 450(c)(1). Defendants are awarded a total of $750.00 in attorney’s fees and costs. Sanctions are payable within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order.

 

  • 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

9

CIV 533705       TOYIN LAWLOR VS. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, ET AL.

 

 

TOYIN LAWLOR                          MICHAEL E. ADAMS

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BY OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY

 

 

·         Moot.  A 1st Amended Complaint was filed on July 23, 2015.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

10

CLJ 524571       THINKTANK LEARNING, INC. VS. HILDA LAI

 

 

THINKTANK LEARNING, INC.              DANNING JIANG

HILDA LAI                             JUDITH J. RENTSCHLER

 

 

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL BY HILDA LAI

 

 

  • The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Hilda Lai by attorney Judith J. Rentschler is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §284(2). Counsel has used the required forms and provided notice to his client, and to all other parties who have appeared in the case per CRC § 3.1362(d).

 

  • Moving attorney 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

11

CLJ 531485       RINARD FORD VS. JOSEPHINE A. MOORE

 

 

RINARD FORD                           PRO/PER

JOSEPHINE A. MOORE                    JONATHAN C. HARRIMAN

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS, TO COMPEL RESPONSES, AND FOR

SANCTIONS BY JOSEPHINE A MOORE

 

 

  • The unopposed motion to compel responses to Interrogatories [Set 1], responses to Request for Production [Set 1] and to deem matters admitted by Plaintiff brought by Defendant Moore is GRANTED. All those matters set forth in the Request for Admissions, Set One, dated April 29, 2015 are hereby deemed admitted. Plaintiff Ford shall provide verified responses, without objection, to the Form Interrogatories [Set 1] and Request for Production [Set 1] within 15 days of service of the notice of entry of order. Plaintiff Ford is further ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $500.00 to Defendant within 15 days of service of the notice of entry of order.

 

 

  • 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

WRITS AND RECEIVERS CALENDAR

Judge: Honorable John Runde

Department 42

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2F

 

July 30, 2015

 

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 533615       21X PROPERTIES LP VS. MASON-TARLTON CO., LLC.

 

 

21X PROPERTIES LP                     ANDREW P. HOLLAND

MASON-TARLTON CO., LLC.               WALTER R. SCHNEIDER

 

 

PETITION TO APPOINT RECEIVER

 

 

·         Petition to Appoint Receiver is GRANTED.

 

 


 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County