May 30, 2016
Law & Motion Department 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 donald j. ayoob

Department 27

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 7B

 

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

 

NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL

 

Until further order of the Court, no endorsed-filed “courtesy copy” of pleadings is required to be provided to the Law and Motion Department.

 

 

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.

 

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 524843       ELIZABETH KARNAZES VS. JOHN FERRY, ET AL.

 

 

ELIZABETH KARNAZES                    PRO/PER

JOHN FERRY

 

                                      RANDOLPH S. HICKS

MOTION TO SET AN ADDITIONAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE BY JOHN E. FERRY AND KIRSTEN FERRY

 

 

The motion is DENIED.  The Department of the Presiding Judge will set a Case Management Conference for July 2016 and will send written notice to all parties.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

2

CIV 534539       LAWRENCE P. PURCELL VS. ERIC CARL DEBODE, ET AL.

 

 

LAWRENCE P. PURCELL                   PHILIP L. GREGORY

ERIC CARL DEBODE                      RICHARD J. VAZNAUGH

 

 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS BY MICHAEL T. IGLESIAS

 

 

Judge Donald J. Ayoob having been recused in this matter, this motion shall be heard in Department 25, before the Honorable Joseph C. Scott.  Please see tentative ruling on Judge Scott’s 05/31/16 Special Set calendar.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

3

CIV 534581       IGNACIO LOPEZ VS. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

 

IGNACIO LOPEZ                         JEFFREY L. TADE

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION          PAUL S. SHENG

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF IGNACIO LOPEZ'S FURTHER RESPONSES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, NOS. 14 TO 36 AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

 

 

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission and Form Interrogatories (Set Two) is GRANTED.

 

Defendant is entitled to complete responses which fully comply with the Code of Civil Procedure. 

 

Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses, without objection, to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 14-36 which comply with CCP §2031.220, which requires a statement that “all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”

 

If Plaintiff is unable to comply, then Plaintiff must include a response in compliance with CCP §2031.230 “that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand” and also specify “whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.”  Also, the statement “shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

 

No sanctions are awarded because the parties met and conferred in good faith despite continuing to disagree.

 

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 Donald J. Ayoob, Department 27.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

4

CIV 535296       KIMBERLY MATSUNE, ET AL. VS. ALBERT DEL ROSSO, ET AL.

 

 

KIMBERLY MATSUNE                      MICHAEL R. BRACAMONTES

ALBERT DEL ROSSO                      DENNIS F. MORIARTY

 

 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT DAN LYONS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY KIMBERLY MATSUNE AND JASON MATSUNE

 

 

Plaintiff having withdrawn the Demurrer to Defendant Lyons’ Answer to the First Amended Complaint, the case is ordered off calendar.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

5

CIV 536333       LUZVIMINDA CABALISTASAN VS. MISSION DALY CITY

                   LAUNDROMAT, ET AL.

 

 

LUZVIMINDA CABALISTASAN               D.L. RENCHER

MISSION DALY CITY LAUNDROMAT          SCOTT A. COX

 

 

DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT’S ANSWER BY LUZVIMINDA CABALISTASAN

 

 

Plaintiff Luzviminda Cabalistasan, the demurring party, failed to file a declaration, as required by CCP §430.41(a)(3), showing that the parties met and conferred, either in person or telephonically, for the purpose of determining whether an agreement could be reached to resolve the objections to be raised in the Demurrer.  The hearing on this Demurrer is CONTINUED until June 30, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., in the Law and Motion Department so that the parties may meet and confer.  The demurring party is required to file, no later than 7 days prior to the new hearing date, a code-compliant declaration stating either (1) the parties have met and conferred and (a) the parties have resolved the objections raised in the demurrer, which shall be taken off calendar or (b) the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer; or (2) the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.  If the parties failed to file and serve the declaration demonstrating compliance with the requirements of section 430.41, the Demurrer will be stricken as procedurally improper.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

6

CIV 536825       SAMIR SHAIKH VS. CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY

 

 

SAMIR SHAIKH                          PRO/PER

CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY                 SCOTT D. LONG

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BY SAMIR SHAIKH AND RAFIA SHAIKH

 

 

Plaintiffs Samir Shaikh and Rafia Shaikh’s Motion to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §§473(a)(1), 576 and California’s liberal public policy of permitting the filing of  amended pleadings.  Edwards v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 172, 180, 710 and 718.

 

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

7

CLJ 212445       RCMTP, LLC VS. ISABEL GOMEZ, ET AL.

 

 

RCMTP, LLC                            ANN MARIE HURLBUT

ISABEL GOMEZ                          SHIRLEY E. GIBSON

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT (UNLAWFUL DETAINER) of RCMTP, LLC BY ISABEL GOMEZ AND BRABLIO CARDENAS

 

 

The general Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.  Civil Code §798.56(e) permits a tenancy in a mobile home park to be terminated for nonpayment of rent, utility charges or reasonable incidental service charges.  CCP §1161(2) provides that a three-day notice of nonpayment of rent must specify the amount of rent due. 

 

In this case, the notice states the amount of rent due for January 2016, but also includes $241 as a previous balance.  Absent any indication of what this amount includes, it is impossible to determine that it represents one of the types of charges for which a failure to pay will permit termination.  Accordingly, the notice provided here does not fulfill the statutory requirements of CCP §1161(2).  Whether Plaintiff will be able to prove at trial that the charge is for past due rent is not the issue on a demurrer.  Rather, the issue is whether the complaint adequately states a cause of action, which it cannot when there was not proper notice.

 

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 Donald J. Ayoob, Department 27.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

8

CLJ 536163       WOOD ROBBINS LLP, ET AL. VS. RICHARD T. CHANG, ET AL.

 

 

WOOD ROBBINS, LLP                     KELLEY A. HARVILLA

RICHARD T. CHANG

 

 

PETITION FOR ORDER TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD AND FOR JUDGMENT

IN CONFORMANCE THEREWITH BY WOOD ROBBINS, LLP AND B. DOUGLAS ROBBINS

 

 

The Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award is DENIED for failure to comply with CCP §1285.4.  The Petition does not set forth the substance of the arbitration agreement nor is a copy of the agreement attached.  In addition, Petitioner has not attached a copy of the award to the Petition.

 

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.

 

_____________________________________________________________________
9:01

9

CIV 534062       BRENDA DAVIS VS. FIDELITY NATIONAL MANAGEMENT

                   SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

 

 

BRENDA DAVIS                          PIETER BOGAARDS

FIDELITY NATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC     KAI-CHING CHA

 

 

MOTION FOR FURTHER RESPONSES FROM FIDELITY NATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC TO DOCUMENT DEMAND, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL BY BRENDA DAVIS

 

 

Insofar as the parties acknowledge that the motions and responses here are identical to those the Court heard on May 6, 2016 involving Defendant Chicago Title, the Court intends to issue a ruling consistent with the order made in that motion.

 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the applicability of the ruling in the earlier motion to this matter.  If, based upon the Court’s prior ruling, the parties are unable to resolve any remaining disputes, then counsel shall appear at the hearing.

 

____________________________________________________________________
9:01

10

CIV 536529       RANDY GAPPI VS. YTR HOMES ICF/DD-H INC., ET AL.

 

RANDY GAPPI                           RICHARD TAGUINOD

YTR HOMES ICF/DD-H INC.               JOHN S. HONG

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF GAPPI BY LORNA VILLANUEVA

 

 

Defendant Lorna Villanueva’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

 

For purposes of the Demurrer, all material facts in the pleadings are assumed to be true.  Ellenberger v. Espinosa (2004) 30 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.  However, the deductions or conclusions of fact or law are not accepted as true.  Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.

 

Defendant Villanueva was not Plaintiff’s “employer” within the definition found in the Labor Code.  Defendant Villanueva, as an individual who is alleged to have committed these acts in the course and scope of her employment as Plaintiff’s supervisor, cannot be individually liable for the actions of the plaintiff’s corporate or entity employer.  "[C]orporate agents acting within the scope of their agency are not personally liable for the corporate employer's failure to pay its employees' wages."  Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075, 1087-88.  "The IWC's definition of ‘employer' does not impose liability on individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency.”  Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35, 66.

 

By proscribing “any unlawful business practice,” section 17200 borrows violations of other laws and treats them as “unlawful business practices” that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.  Cel-Tech. Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.

 

Because the first two causes of action against Defendant Villanueva as an individual fail, the third cause of action for violation of Bus. & Prof. §17200, et seq., unfair business practices, likewise fails.

 

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice of (1) the Complaint in Randy Gappi v. Yolanda Ruiz, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. CIV528827 and (2) the Civil Register of Actions from the same case is GRANTED.

 


 

 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Special Set Calendar

Judge: Honorable JOSEPH C. SCOTT

Department 25

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2G

 

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

 

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

3. YOU MUST CALL (650) 261-5019 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. TO INFORM THE COURT OF YOUR INTENT TO APPEAR.

4. 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 534539       LAWRENCE P. PURCELL VS. ERIC CARL DEBODE, ET AL.

 

 

LAWRENCE P. PURCELL                   PHILIP L. GREGORY

ERIC CARL DEBODE                      RICHARD J. VAZNAUGH

 

 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS BY MICHAEL T. IGLESIAS

 

 

  • Good cause being shown, the Motion for Protective Order by Third Party Michael T. Iglesias is GRANTED.  Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §2025.420(b)(9), (10) and (11), Plaintiff LAWRENCE P. PURCELL may not depose Mr. Iglesias on the following:  1) Any August 2014 communications between Defendants and Mr. Iglesias, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege, with the exception of any documents or communications actually provided to Melissa Hansell or intentionally produced or testified to in this case and 2) Any October 2014 communications between Defendants and Mr. Iglesias, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege.  [Evid. Code §954.]

 

  • In addition, Mr. Iglesias need not produce any documents responsive to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1-11 as set forth in his deposition notice as these documents are protected attorney work product.  [Code Civ. Proc. §2018.030(a).]

 

  • 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.

 


 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County