November 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

 

NOVEMBER 18, 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 521193       JOSHUA W. VS. THE REDWOOD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET

                   AL.

 

 

JOSHUA W.                             HEATHER M. SWEENEY

THE REDWOOD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT      MARK E. DAVIS

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA AS TO REDWOOD CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT BY JOSHUA W.

 

 

·         The Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED as to Request Nos. 8 and 9.  Request No. 8 seeks attorney-work product, therefore is denied under CCP § 2018.030.  Request No. 9 seeks documents protected by the official information privilege under Gov. § 6254(f).

·         The Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED at this time as to Request Nos. 1-7 pending the Court’s in camera review of the records sought pursuant Evidence Code §§ 915(d) and 1040.

 

·         The Court is troubled by Plaintiff’s assertion that he has possession of what appears to be confidential reports and materials which pertain to confidential informants and witnesses. It appears that neither the District Attorney’s Office (DA) nor the Redwood City Police Department supplied Plaintiff with these materials including unredacted police reports which appear to contain confidential and clearly protected information.  Similarly, the audio tapes of the D.A.’s interviews with the Aides do not appear to have been disclosed by the D.A.’s Office.  Nor was a court order permitting the disclosure of this information obtained.  The possession of this material forms the basis for Plaintiff’s assertion that the Aides no longer have privacy rights with respect to these materials.  This argument is unavailing.

 

·         Nonetheless, the Court does have the discretion to order the disclosure of the requested information, and it appears that the requested information might be relevant to the contested issues herein, especially with respect to the credibility of the Aides, and the confidentiality of the information might be adequately protected under a suitable protective order.  Hence, the need for in camera review by the Court.

 

·         The City of Redwood City and the District Attorney’s Office are ordered to submit the materials responsive to Request Nos. 1–7 to the court for an in camera review by November 21, 2014.

 

·         No sanctions are awarded to either side.

 

·         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

2

CIV 524276       BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. VS. ROBERT MEUSCHKE COMPANY,

                   INC., ET AL.

 

 

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.                 ROBERT K. EDMUNDS

ROBERT MEUSCHKE COMPANY, INC.         NOELL K. KUBOTA

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT BY BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

 

 

·         Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  The trial in this matter is not scheduled until April 20, 2015, and Defendant will not be prejudiced by allowing this amendment.  The Amended Complaint must be filed by November 21, 2014. 

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS BY BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

 

 

·         Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and for Sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2033.280.   Plaintiff served Defendant with relevant discovery over eleven months ago, and Defendant has still not responded.  Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff $1,732.00 pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c).  Plaintiff is only entitled to the costs and attorney’s fees associated with this motion, not for costs and attorney’s fees associated with the preparation of the discovery requests.

 

·         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

3

CIV 524301       LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. TIG INSURANCE

                   COMPANY

 

 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY      DAVID H. WATERS

TIG INSURANCE COMPANY                 ROBERT W. KEASTER

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COMPLAINT of LIBERTY MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY BY TIG INSURANCE COMPANY

 

 

·         This matter has been continued to December 2, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion department.  No further briefing or other papers shall be filed by any party.

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY LIBERTY MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY

 

 

·         This matter has been continued to December 2, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion department.  No further briefing or other papers shall be filed by any party.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

4

CIV 525689       NADEZDA ANDREJEVIC VS. JONG YOUNG LEE, ET AL.

 

 

NADEZDA ANDREJEVIC                    LEIGH A. STEPP

JONG YOUNG LEE                        E. DAVID MARKS

 

 

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR NADEZDA ANDREJEVIC BY LEIGH A. STEPP

 

 

·         Counsel Leigh A. Stepp’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Nadezda Andrejevic is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 284(2) and CRC §3.1362.  Counsel has filed this motion using the required forms and has provided notice to the Plaintiff and Defendant’s counsel.

 

·         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 527935       YOUNG M. KIM, ET AL. VS. VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION

                   SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

 

 

YOUNG M. KIM                          CONOR M. KELLY

VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION SERVICES        MARK A HAGOPIAN

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE BY SUPERSHUTTLE OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC.

 

 

·         This matter is moot since the plaintiff served an unverified Supplemental Response to the Requests for Production of Documents.  Service was by mail on October 10, 2014.

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE BY SUPERSHUTTLE OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC.

 

 

·         The Motion to Compel Further Responses as to Interrogatories Nos. 60/84; 61/85; 69/94; 94/119; 95/120; 96/121 and 83/108 is GRANTED  so that Plaintiffs can provide full and complete, verified responses; however, with respect to No. 69/94, Plaintiffs need only provide a response as to themselves and the time period of ten (10) years shall be modified to mean seven (7) years. 

 

·         The Motion to Compel Further Responses with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 66/91, 71/96, 85/110, 89/114, 90/115, 91/116, 97/122, 98/123, 99/124, 100/125 and 103/128 is GRANTED provided that anytime one of these Interrogatories references a time period of ten (10) years it shall be modified to mean seven (7) years. 

 

·         The Motion to Compel Further Responses with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 72/97, 79/104, 101/126 and 102/127 is GRANTED provided that anytime one of these Interrogatories references a time period of ten (10) years it shall be modified to mean seven (7) years. 

 

·         No sanctions are awarded to either side.

 

·         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

6

CIV 529167       TERESA STEVENSON VS. MAC HOSPITALITY, INC., ET AL.

 

 

TERESA STEVENSON                      GARY W. DOLINSKI

MAC HOSPITALITY, INC.                 ANDREW M. LAUDERDALE

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of STEVENSON BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

·         Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA’s Demurrer to “First Amended” Complaint is OVERRULED.  The operative pleading in this matter is the original Complaint, not a First Amended Complaint.  Moreover, the Complaint properly asserts a claim for dangerous condition of public property against the public entity defendants. 

 

·         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

7

CIV 530289       NATHANIEL BASOLA SOBAYO VS. MARIA SOSA, ET AL.

 

 

NATHANIEL BASOLA SOBAYO               PRO/PER

MARIA SOSA                            PRO/PER

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of SOBAYO BY JENNIFER LOSKAMP AND CHRIS SHAHEEN

 

 

·         The general Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to allege wrongful conduct on the part of Defendants Jennifer Loskamp and Chris Shaheen.  The special Demurrer for uncertainty is moot given the ruling on the general Demurrer.

 

·         The Court notes that on October 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal stating that he was appealing Judge Elizabeth K. Lee's order granting Sosa's ex parte application to extend the time to file a responsive pleading. Hearing and ruling on Loskamp and Shaheen's Demurrer would not affect the effectiveness of Plaintiff’s appeal of Judge Lee's order.  The instant Demurrer is not a proceeding in the trial court upon the order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the order; rather, it is another matter embraced in the action and not affected by the order.  Thus, the hearing on this Demurrer is not stayed by the Notice of Appeal.  CCP § 916(a); Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.

 

·         The Court further notes that on October 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings, attaching a Notice of Bankruptcy Case Filing indicating a case concerning Kingsway Capital Partners, LLC, which had been filed under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on October 23, 2014.  As the debtor is a plaintiff, the automatic stay provision, which applies to proceedings against the debtor, is inapplicable to this action.  11 U.S.C.A. § 362(a)(1); Shorr v. Kind (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 249, 254; Shah v. Glendale Fed. Bank (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1375-76.

 

·         Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

 

·         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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

8

CIV 530431       ANITA TEVANIAN VS. INTERMUNE, INC., ET AL.

 

 

ANITA TEVANIAN                        MARK C. MOLUMPHY

INTERMUNE, INC.

 

 

MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON EXCLUSIVE FORUM SELECTION PROVISION BY INTERMUNE, INC., DANIEL WELCH, LARS EKMAN, JEAN-JACQUES BIENAIME, LOUIS DRAPEAU, JAMES HEALY, DAVID KABAKOFF, ANGUS RUSSELL AND FRANK VERWIEL

 

 

·         This matter has been assigned to Judge Marie S. Weiner for all purposes including hearing this Motion to Dismiss.  The moving party is directed to contact Judge Weiner’s courtroom at (650) 261-5102 to put this matter on calendar.

 


 

 

 


POSTED:  3:19 PM

© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County