January 29, 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

 

Tuesday, January 27, 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 496610       DRILL TECH DRILLING & SHORING, INC. VS. ENGINEERED

                   SOIL REPAIRS, INC., ET AL.

 

 

DRILL TECH DRILLING & SHORING         BRUCE W. ASHFORD

ENGINEERED SOIL REPAIRS, INC.         DAVID A. ELIGATOR

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 2ND AMENDED CROSS-CO BY 330 ESPLANADE, LLC

 

 

  • The Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Cross-Complaint Defendant / Cross-Complainant 330 ESPLANADE, LLC’s is GRANTED.  Cross-Complainant is to file its Second Amended Cross-Complaint no later than February 2, 2015.

 

  • 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

2

CIV 522390       ANDY SABERI VS. SAEED GHAFOORI

 

 

ANDY SABERI                           DONALD F. DRUMMOND

SAEED GHAFOORI                        ORESTES A. CROSS

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY ANDY SABERI

 

 

  • Plaintiff's objections to the December 18, 2014 letter are overruled.

 

  • The subject motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.  Regarding requests #1-3, the objections that the request are overbroad, burdensome, seeks evidence that is not relevant and is vague and ambiguous are without merit.  The statement in the response to requests #1 and #3 that the requested documents are unavailable is authorized by CCP §2031.210(a)(2).  However, the response is not compliant with CCP §2031.230 and a further response should be provided as to whether a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made.  The objection in response to request #2 and #3 that the documents sought are privileged tax records is meritorious.  Plaintiff has not shown that the circumstances of this case fit within the 3 exceptions set forth in Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 721.

 

  • Defendant shall provide further verified responses as outlined above no later than February 18, 2015.

 

  • The request for sanctions by Defendant Ghafoori is DENIED.

 

  • 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 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

3

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

 

 

DORSETTA CAGLE                        JEFFREY R. WINDSOR

FREUTEL ROOFING INC.                  COLETTE F. STONE

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT BY ELIZABETH GRAY

 

 

·         The unopposed Motion by Defendant Elizabeth Gray is GRANTED.

 

·         Moving party may file a Cross-Complaint consistent with her proposed Cross-Complaint no later than February 11, 2015.

 

·         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

4

CIV 525696       KIYOMI ISHII VS. RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE CAPITAL, ET AL.

 

 

KIYOMI ISHII                          PATRICIA RODRIGUEZ

RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE CAPITAL

 

 

DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of KIYOMI ISHII BY FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

 

 

·         The Demurrer to the First and Second Causes of Action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.  These causes of action are based on alleged irregularities in the securitization process.  Plaintiff lacks standing to assert any flaws in this process as she is not a party to the any securitization agreements. [Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497].  The Court declines to follow Glaski v. Bank of America (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079.  To the extent plaintiff alleges the Wolf Firm was not properly substituted as trustee at the time the Notice of Default was recorded, this fact is irrelevant.  The Notice of Default indicates it acted as agent for the beneficiary.  Civil Code §2924 permits agents to initiate foreclosure proceedings.

 

·         The Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.  Plaintiff has not alleged a contract between herself and each of the Defendants, nor does she allege her performance under the contract or Defendants acts that interfered with her right to receive the benefits of the contract.

 

·         The Demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action is also SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.  Plaintiff has not alleged facts to show her standing to assert the claim nor that any practice attributed to the moving Defendants is unlawful, unfair or fraudulent.  The allegations of the FAC consist of broad conclusory statements with no supporting facts.

 

·         Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint, should she elect to do so, no later than 10 days from receipt of Notice of Entry of Order.

 

·         Demurring 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 526751       CHRISTINE MILLS vs. DIGNITY HEALTH, et al.

 

 

CHRISTINE MILLS                       CAROLYN A. GYERMEK

DIGNITY HEALTH                        CYRUS A. TABARI

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COMPLAINT of CHRISTINE MILLS FILED BY CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, GARY MACGREGOR, M.D., DANIEL G. LIBKE, M.D., JOAN J. MEHARG, M.D., MICHAEL E. EIFFERT, M.D., STEPHEN VAUGHAN, M.D., DAVID PUSATERI, M.D., CHARLES R. REPPE, PA-C, and MICHAEL J. PUTNAM, PA-C

 

 

·         Continued to February 3, 2015 at 9:00a.m. in Dept. LM.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 528455       ROBERT CROSBY VS. MENLO CIRCUS CLUB, ET AL.

 

 

ROBERT CROSBY                         YOSEF PERETZ

MENLO CIRCUS CLUB                     TIMOTHY C. DAVIS

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY RESPONSES, DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS BY ROBERT CROSBY

 

 

  • Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents is DENIED as to Requests Nos. 102 – 104, 107 – 125 and 127 – 129.  Plaintiff has not demonstrated fact specific good cause as is required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(b)(1).  With respect to Request Nos. 106 and 126 the Motion is GRANTED.  Defendant Menlo Circus Club shall provide further responses to these Requests together with responsive documents within 15 days after service of Notice of Entry of Order.

 

  • The Motion to Compel Further Response as to Interrogatories Nos. 89 – 111 is GRANTED.  Menlo Circus Club shall provide further full and complete responses within 15 days after service of Notice of Entry of Order.

 

  • The Motion to Compel Further Response to Interrogatory No. 112 is GRANTED to the extent of providing the names, and most current address and telephone number of employees under the supervision of Plaintiff, given their standing as witnesses to Plaintiff’s actions as supervisor. Defendant Menlo Circus Club shall provide a full and complete response within 15 days after service of Notice of Entry of Order.

 

  • Requests for Sanctions made by the parties 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

7

CIV 528716       MILA IRENE ROMERO VS. JEROME PIOVANO

 

 

MILA IRENE ROMERO                     S. ALEX LIAO

JEROME PIOVANO                        JAMES P. MOLINELLI

 

 

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL BY S. ALEX LIAO

 

 

  • Counsel S. Alex Liao’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Mila Irene Romero is DENIED without prejudice pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362(d).  Counsel must service of the Notice of Motion and Motion, Declaration, and Proposed Order upon his client and all other parties that have appeared in the case.

 

  • 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

8

CIV 528725       STATE FARM GENERAL INS CO VS. IKENASIO LATAIMUA

 

 

STATE FARM GENERAL INS CO             JOSEPH M. PLEASANT

IKENASIO LATAIMUA                     PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO DEEM ADMISSIONS AND OF NONAPPEARANCE BY STATE FARM GENERAL INS CO

 

 

  • The unopposed Motion by Plaintiff State Farm General Ins. Co. for an Order Deeming Facts Admitted is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2033.280. All of those matters set forth in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, dated October 29, 2014, are hereby deemed admitted.

 

  • Plaintiff’s request for Sanctions is also granted pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.010(d) and 2033.280(c).  Defendant shall pay Plaintiff a total of $460.00 in sanctions within 15 days of notice of entry of this 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 530664       LAWRENCE A. STERN, ET AL. VS. SOJOURN TO THE PAST

 

 

LAWRENCE A. STERN                     DOV M. GRUNSCHLAG

SOJOURN TO THE PAST                   JILL E. FOX

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of LAWRENCE A. STERN BY SOJOURN TO THE PAST

 

 

  • Request for Judicial Notice by Defendant Sojourn to the Past is GRANTED pursuant to evidence Code §452 (d).

 

  • The unopposed Demurrer brought by Defendant Sojourn to the Past is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.  The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action against Defendant.

 

  • Regarding the contractual claims [express contract, implied contract and quantum meruit] the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to show the existence of a valid obligation on the part of Defendant, the terms of any such agreement, the adequacy of any consideration or reasonableness as required. Additionally, the alleged contract appears to constitute a self-interested transaction by plaintiffs [as members of the Board of Directors] that is illegal and void. [Corporations Code §§5233, 7233, 7238].  In addition, the Complaint fails to allege or identify anyone with authority who allegedly acted on behalf of defendant corporation to obligate the defendant. [Corporations Code §§5233, 7233, 7238].

 

  • As to the fraud claim, the Complaint has not alleged fraud with the required specificity. It fails to allege who spoke on behalf of the Corporation, whether they had authority to speak on behalf of the Corporation, the specific representations and the date of such representations. [Wilhelm v. Pray, Price, Williams & Russell (1986) 186 Cal App 3d 1324, 1331].

 

  • Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint, should he elect to do so, within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order on the Demurrer.

 

  • Demurring 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

10

CIV 530862       JC INTERNATIONAL CO VS. PITTMAN FAMILY FARMS, INC.

 

 

JC INTERNATIONAL CO                   JONATHON LA

PITMAN FAMILY FARMS                   JAN T. PERKINS

 

 

DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of JC INTERNATIONAL CO BY PITMAN FARMS

 

 

The Demurrer to the Plaintiff’s 1st Amended Complaint by Defendant Pitman Family Farms is sustained as follows:

 

  • As to the general Demurrer regarding Plaintiff’s standing to sue, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The Complaint is uncertain in that it appears that plaintiff is trying to assert a breach of contract action against Defendant on behalf of its client in Hong Kong. See ¶¶6, 7, 10, 11. Plaintiff must allege with certainty that it is bringing this action on its own behalf arising from its own specific contract with Defendant.

 

  • As to the Fraud Causes of Action [1st intentional concealment, 2nd intentional misrepresentation and 4th fraud] the Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. These causes of action are not pled with the requisite specificity. Plaintiff did not plead how, when, where, to whom and by what means the representations were tendered. The allegations are insufficient as they fail to provide any details as to who made the alleged fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, what they said and when it was said or written. [Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal 4th 631, 645].

 

·         As to the 3rd Cause of Action for breach of contract, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The Amended Complaint does not state whether the contract was written, oral or implied by conduct. Paragraph 9 of the FAC references an agreement purportedly attached as Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1, however appears to be a string of e-mail messages which make reference to a manifest for chicken feet and state that based on the weight the cost will be $15,452.13. This insufficiently alleges the existence of a contract and whether that contract was written, oral or implied. CCP 430.10(g).

 

·         The Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 6th Cause of Action for promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel is not a separate cause of action from the alleged breach of contract

 

  • Regarding the general Demurrer concerning Plaintiff’s standing to sue, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The complaint is uncertain in that it appears that Plaintiff is trying to assert a breach of contract action against Defendant on behalf of its client in Hong Kong. See ¶¶6, 7, 10, 11. Plaintiff must allege with certainty that it is bringing this action on its own behalf arising from its own specific contract with Defendant.

 

  • As to the Fraud Causes of Action [1st intentional concealment, 2nd intentional misrepresentation and 4th fraud] the Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. These causes of action are not pled with the requisite specificity. Plaintiff has not plead how, when, where, to whom and by what means the representations were tendered. The allegations are insufficient as they fail to provide any details as to who made the alleged fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, what they said and when it was said or written.[Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal 4th 631, 645].

 

·         As to the 3rd Cause of Action for breach of contract, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The Amended Complaint fails to state whether the contract was written, oral or implied by conduct. Paragraph 9 of the FAC references an agreement purportedly attached as Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1, however appears to be a string of e-mail messages which make reference to a manifest for chicken feet and state that based on the weight that will be $15,452.13. This insufficiently alleges the existence of a contract and whether that contract was written, oral or implied. CCP 430.10(g).

 

  • The Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 6th Cause of Action for promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel is not a separate cause of action from the alleged breach of contract.

 

  • Plaintiff is shall file and serve a Second Amended Complaint, should it elect to do so, no later than January 31, 2015.

 

  • Demurring 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

11

CLJ 210540       ROBERT CHEN VS. JARNIE CAMPO BERNARDINO

 

 

ROBERT CHEN                           ANDRES SANCHEZ

JARNIE CAMPO BERNARDINO               NANCY M. CONWAY

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT (UNLAWFUL DETAINER) of ROBERT CHEN BY JARNIE CAMPO BERNARDINO

 

 

·         The Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. 

 

·         Demurrers are disfavored in Unlawful Detainer proceedings. Case law holds that a Motion to Quash and not a Demurrer is the only proper procedure to test whether a complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer. [Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1983) 146 Cal App 3rd 1033, 1036].

 

·         A Demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading and raises only issues of law, not of fact, regarding the form or content of the pleading under attack.  A Demurrer does not challenge the truthfulness of allegations in the pleading.  It assumes all facts pleaded are true, no matter how improbable. [Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal. 3rd 584, 591].  Accordingly, no Demurrer will lie unless the defect under challenge appears on the face of the complaint or through a matter subject to judicial notice.

 

  • In this case, the defects do not appear on the face of the complaint. Plaintiff seeks possession of the premises after providing Defendant with 60 days’ notice to vacate. Defendant’s argument that because the notice was mailed to him, the time must be increased by five days pursuant to CCP 1013(a). However, the extension of time provided in CCP 1013(a) does not apply to notices of termination of tenancy provided pursuant to Civil Code 1946.1(f). The service and notice provisions in the Unlawful Detainer statutes and CCP 1013 are mutually exclusive and CCP 1013 does not extend the notice periods that are a prerequisite filing an unlawful detainer action. [Losornio v. Motta (1998) 67 Cal App 4th 110, 115].

 

  • Defendant shall file an Answer to the complaint no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday February 2, 2015.

 

  • 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

12

CLJ 210615       HUMBERTO RAMIREZ VS. LORENA ROBLES, ET AL.

 

 

HUMBERTY RAMIREZ                      TODD ROTHBARD

LORENA ROBLES

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER SUMMONS BY LORENA ROBLES

 

 

·         Appear.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

13

CLJ 529757       CACH, LLC VS. SHARONDA BEASLEY

 

 

CACH LLC                              TIFFANY M. LOPEZ

SHARONDA BEASLEY                      FRED W. SCHWINN

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS BY SHARONDA BEASLEY

 

 

·         DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in light of the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Protective Order brought by Plaintiff. (see below).

 

·         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.

 

 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BY CACH LLC

 

  • Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED on the following terms:

 

  1. Plaintiff shall, within ten days, produce a redacted hard copy of the Loan Purchase Agreement with all proprietary information removed. Plaintiff shall also redact all personal and confidential information of other consumers unrelated to this matter.

 

  1. No production of an electronic version of the Loan Purchase Agreement is required to the extent that a hard copy version is produced.

 

  1. The disclosure of the redacted Loan Purchase Agreement and use of its contents are limited to this matter only.

 

  1. Defendant is precluded from providing the document to any third party, disseminating the information contained therein, or reproducing the document for any purpose unrelated to this matter.

 

  • Note: CRC 3.1113(f) requires a table of authorities and a table of contents for all memoranda of law exceeding ten pages. Failure to comply with the Rules of Court will result in memoranda not being considered.

 

·         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 JOHN L. GRANDSAERT

Department 11

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2D

 

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

 

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

1

CIV 530955       RAFAEL GUTIERREZ VS. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS

 

 

RAFAEL GUTIERREZ                                PRO/PER

SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS                          ROBERT L. ZALETEL

 

 

COMPLEX CASE STATUS CONFERENCE

 

 

·         The parties should Appear

 

 


 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County