July 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, July 28, 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 514363     JAMES M. HUGGER, ET AL. VS. COAST CAPITAL INCOME FUND, LLC., ET AL.

 

 

JAMES M. HUGGER                       PRO/PER

COAST CAPITAL INCOME FUND, LLC.       MICHAEL D. MANDELL

 

 

MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES BY JAMES M. HUGGER, ET AL.

 

 

  • Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Discovery is GRANTED IN PART.  Discovery is reopened to allow the limited depositions of: Chad Hansen, Kimberly Badtke, Peter Kline and Bruce Nakao.  The subject matter of the deposition shall be limited to questions relating to or arising out of the documents recently provided to plaintiffs in March and April, 2015.  The depositions shall be limited to the time set forth in CCP §2025.290(a).  Defense counsel and plaintiffs are ordered to appear with their calendars to discuss available deposition dates.

 

  • Moving parties are 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

2

CIV 527040       DALY CITY SERRAMONTE CENTER, LLC. VS. CINNAWORKS

 

 

DALY CITY SERRAMONTE CENTER, LLC.     ERNIE ZACHARY PARK

CINNAWORKS                            JOE R. ABRAMSON

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER VACATING DISMISSAL FOR PURPOSES OF ENFORCING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY DALY CITY SERRAMONTE CENTER, LLC.

 

·         The Motion for an Order Vacating the Dismissal and Entering Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation by  Plaintiff Daly City Serramonte Center LLC is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §664.6. The written stipulation executed by the parties provides that plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment against defendant if defendant failed to comply with the terms of the stipulation. The stipulation provided that defendant would make monthly payments of $2,000.00 per month for 9 months beginning April 15, 2015. Defendant has failed to make any of the $2,000.00 monthly payments and has failed to cure its default within 7 days as required under the terms of the settlement agreement. Plaintiff is awarded a judgment in the amount of $60,000.00, less payments made in the amount of $4,000.00, plus late fees of $100.00 for a total judgment of $56,100.00.

              

·         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 528024       CALDERA PROPERTIES, LLC. VS. MICHAEL CHALHOUB, ET AL.

 

 

CALDERA PROPERTIES, LLC               CYNTHIA HACKLER

MICHAEL CHALHOUB                      CHARLES S. BRONITSKY

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL INSPECTION OF REAL PROPERTY AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF BY MICHAEL CHALHOUB, ET AL.

 

 

·         The motion is GRANTED.  CCP Section 2031.010(d) allows inspection of property that is in the other party’s “possession, custody, or control.”  Under the lease between Plaintiff and its tenant, the Tenant does not have exclusive control over the premises. The lease states that the tenant “shall” make the premises available for various purposes, including “necessary repairs.” (Lease ¶ 19(A).) This provision confers upon Plaintiff a limited amount of control, since it requires the Tenant to allow entry for various purposes. Thus, Plaintiff maintains sufficient partial “control” of the property such that section 2031.010(d) permits Defendant to conduct a limited inspection.

 

·         The purpose of paragraph 19(A) and Civil Code Section 1954 is to protect the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. (Dromy v. Lukovsky (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 278, 285.) A competing right is a litigant’s right to discovery, which, with certain protections, sometimes outweighs even the right of privacy. (See, e. g., Save Open Space Santa Monica Mountains v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 235, 254.) So long as the quiet enjoyment protections of Civil Code section 1954 and the lease are observed, Plaintiff is entitled to enter a Tenant’s premises for the limited purpose of allowing an inspection under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010(d). (See also Civ. Code § 1954, subd. (a)(4) [landlord may enter dwelling “pursuant to court order”].)

 

·         Since “necessary repairs” requires the Tenant to permit Plaintiff landlord’s entry (Lease ¶ 19(A); Civ. Code ¶ 1954), then an inspection under Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.010 that is directly related to necessary repairs also allows entry to the premises. In addition to past repairs, Plaintiff alleges that damages are “ongoing.” (Responses to Special Interrogatories 79 and 85, attached as Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Bronitsky.) Further, the lease and section 1954 permit Plaintiff “to show” the property for purposes that benefit only the landlord (“purchasers, tenants, mortgagees, lenders, appraisers, or contractors”).  An inspection under Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.010 potentially benefits Plaintiff if it supports the allegations of property damage.

 

·         Plaintiff shall comply with Defendant’s inspection demand in a manner that is consistent with the Tenant’s rights (by contract and statute) concerning notice of entry.  The inspection shall be conducted on a mutually date and time within 60 days of notice of entry of order.

  

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant 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 532680       JOSEPH LaCHAPELLE ET AL. VS. DONG KWAN KIM, ET AL.

 

 

JOSEPH LACHAPELLE                        MARK A. SERLIN

DONG KWAN KIM

 

 

MOTION FOR CHARGING ORDER BY JOSEPH LaCHAPELLE

 

 

  • The Motion for Order to Charge Member’s Interest brought by Joseph LaChapell and James Field is DENIED. The motion is brought pursuant to CCP §708.310. However, that code section only applies to a judgment debtor’s interest in a partnership or limited liability company. The object of the charging order in this case is a corporation, ZeroDesktop, Inc., and is not a partnership or a limited liability company. In addition, the judgment debtor, Dong Kwan Kim, was served with the notice of motion only by regular mail at an address in South Korea. As he has never appeared in this matter in California, the court would require him to be personally served.

 

  • 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 Scott, Department 25.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CLJ 210834       JA2109 DUMBARTON, LLC. VS. HOSSEIN S. RAD

 

 

JA2109 DUMBARTON, LLC.                JOANNA KOZUBAL

HOSSEIN S. RAD                        PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO FIRST Amended COMPLAINT(UNLAWFUL DETAINER) BY JA2109 DUMBARTON, LLC.

 

 

 

  • Plaintiff’s Request For Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code 452(d) and 453.

 

  • Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.  Plaintiff has established the required elements of unlawful detainer under Code of Civil Procedure §1161a: Plaintiff’s ownership and right to possession through the trustee’s private sale and recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale; termination of the defendants’ right to possession pursuant to a 3-day notice to quit [CCP § 1161a] and the defendant’s continuing possession. The burden then shifts to Defendant under CCP §437c(p)(1) to establish a triable issue of material fact.  No opposition has been forthcoming.  Plaintiff is awarded a judgment for possession only.

 

  • 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

6

CLJ 527575       UNIFUND CCR, LLC. VS. MARILUPE ALCAIDE-ELGABRY

 

 

UNIFUND CCR, LLC.                     JEFFREY A. TOPOR

MARILUPE ALCAIDE-ELGABRY              PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION (SET ONE) AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY MARILUPE ALCAIDE-ELGABRY

 

 

·         The Court makes no decision on the motion as it is subject to an automatic stay as a result of Bankruptcy Court filing.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CLJ 530172       PITCAIRN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. ELIZABETH MARIE

                   BARNSON KARNAZES

 

 

PITCAIRN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIO        KEVIN D. FREDERICK

ELIZABETH MARIE BARNSON KARNAZES

 

 

MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY ELIZABETH MARIE BARNSON KARNAZES

 

 

  • Defendant’s Motion to Vacate & Set Aside Default & Default Judgment, for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint and to File Cross-Complaint due to Disability is GRANTED.  The default and default judgment are hereby set aside. Defendant has until the close of business on August 24, 2015 to file and serve a responsive pleading. 

 

  • 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.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:01

8

CIV 532745       SORAYA GHARAVI VS. BEHTASH MORADI

 

 

SORAYA GHARAVI                        DAVID G. FINKELSTEIN

BEHTASH MORADI                        PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BY SORAYA GHARAVI

 

 

 

  • Plaintiff Soraya Gharavi’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code §452(d).

 

  • Plaintiff Soraya Gharavi’s unopposed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.  Under CCP § 438(c)(1)(A), a motion for judgment on the pleadings can be made where the complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.  In this case, the Defendant’s answer does not contain a denial of any of the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint. Nor has defendant offered any affirmative defenses or exceptions. Judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $27,070.00.

 

  • 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

 

Presiding Judge Law and Motion Calendar

Judge: HONORABLE JOHN L. GRANDSAERT

Department 11

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2D

 

Tuesday, July 28, 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 528859       GUY BING KAI LAI VS. AMY SALISBURY, ET AL.

 

 

GUY BING KAI LAI                      OSCAR R. ROESLER

AMY SALISBURY                         NANCY ALLARD

 

 

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL BY AMY SALISBURY, ET AL.

 

 

·         For good cause shown, Defendant’s motion to continue trial is GRANTED.  This matter is continued for jury trial to October 5, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.  The parties will have a mandatory settlement conference on September 22, 2015 at 1:30 p.m., in Dept. 21.  Defendant’s counsel to give notice to all parties of the new trial date.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 534002       SHADEA ROBERTSON VS. E-LIGHT ELECTRIC SERVICES, INC.

 

 

SHADEA ROBERTSON                      SHAUN SETAREH

E-LIGHT ELECTRIC SERVICES, INC.

 

 

COMPLEX CASE STATUS CONFERENCE

 

 

·         This case having been removed to federal court, the complex case status conference is continued to September 15, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.  Defendant will give notice of this ruling to all parties.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 534004       KIM LEMOINE VS. STAFFORD-SEBASTIAN VENTURES, LLC. DBA

                   MASSAGE ENVY SPA

 

 

KIM LEMOINE                           JEFF GERACI

STAFFORD-SEBASTIAN VENTURES, LLC.

 

 

COMPLEX CASE STATUS CONFERENCE

 

 

·         All parties not having been served, this complex case status conference is continued to September 15, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.  If this tentative ruling is confirmed at time of hearing, this tentative ruling shall constitute the only notice to the parties of this ruling.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County