December 7, 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 jonathan e. karesh

Department 20

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 8C

 

Tuesday, December 6, 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

Line: 1

16-UDL-00159     DEBORA A MCGLYNN vs. ANTHONY WILLIAMS, et al.

 

 

DEBORA A. MCGLYNN                     MICHAEL BITANDO

ALYCE DAVIS

 

 

MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR MONEY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Money Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation for Entry of Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff Debora A. McGlynn shall have judgment against Defendants Anthony Williams and Alyce Davis in the amount of $7,115.74 (rental damages), plus $2,116.00 (attorney’s fees), plus $365.45 (costs), for a total of $9,597.19.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 



9:00

Line: 2

CIV525919     CHARLES TANIGUCHI, ET AL. VS. RESTORATION HOMES LLC

 

 

CHARLES TANIGUCHI                     EUNJI CHO

SN SERVICING CORPORATION              JEFFREY B. GARDNER

 

 

MOTION for SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Off calendar on the Court’s own motion.  The Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (currently set for December 7, 2016) needs to be decided first.  After the Motion to Amend is decided the Motion for Summary Adjudication will be put back on the calendar at a date convenient to the Court and counsel.

 



9:00

LineS 3 - 6:

CIV530213      CLARITA ESTEBAN VS J.P. MORGAN CHASE, ET AL

 

 

CLARITA ESTEBAN                       CHRISTOPHER A. BROSE

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.          JOHN M. SORICH

 

 

3. MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’s Motion to Deem Matters Admitted with respect to Request for Admissions (Set One) is DENIED.

 

However, Defendant’s alternative Motion to Compel Further Responses to the Request for Admissions is GRANTED.  Plaintiff CLARITA ESTEBAN is ordered to serve full and complete, properly verified responses, without objections, within ten days of service of the notice of entry of order. 

 

It appears that Plaintiff’s daughter, Editha Abugnag, holds a valid power of attorney for Plaintiff that bears her notarized signature.  (Decl. Abugnag, Exhibit A.)  However, if Ms. Abugnag is verifying Plaintiff’s discovery responses in that capacity, her signature block should so state.  Ms. Abugnag’s current attempt to supplement Plaintiff’s discovery responses by way of declarations is insufficient; proper complete supplemental responses must be served. 

 

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $656.25 is GRANTED.  This amount, along with the $860.00 in prior sanctions that have not yet been paid by Plaintiff, must be paid no later than ten days after service of the notice of entry of order. 

 

Should Plaintiff continue to fail to comply with the Court’s orders, Defendant may bring a renewed motion for terminating sanctions. 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 

4. MOTION TERMINATING SANCTIONS, ISSUE SANCTIONS AND OR TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions with respect to the Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is DENIED.

 

Defendant J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’s Motion for Issue Sanctions with respect to the Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is DENIED. 

 

However, Defendant’s alternative Motion to Compel Further Responses to the Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED.  Plaintiff CLARITA ESTEBAN is ordered to serve full and complete, properly verified responses, without objections, within ten days of service of the notice of entry of order. 

 

It appears that Plaintiff’s daughter, Editha Abugnag, holds a valid power of attorney for Plaintiff that bears her notarized signature.  (Decl. Abugnag, Exhibit A.)  However, if Ms. Abugnag is verifying Plaintiff’s discovery responses in that capacity, her signature block should so state.  Ms. Abugnag’s current attempt to supplement Plaintiff’s discovery responses by way of declarations is insufficient; proper complete supplemental responses must be served. 

 

Plaintiff may not withhold documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.  All such objections were waived by Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this discovery in a timely manner.  Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.300(a). 

 

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $656.25 is GRANTED.  This amount, along with the $860.00 in prior sanctions that have not yet been paid by Plaintiff, must be paid no later than ten days after service of the notice of entry of order.   

 

Should Plaintiff continue to fail to comply with the Court’s orders, Defendant may bring a renewed motion for terminating sanctions. 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 

 

5. MOTION TERMINATING SANCTIONS, ISSUE SANCTIONS AND OR TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions with respect to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is DENIED.

 

Defendant J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’s Motion for Issue Sanctions with respect to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is DENIED.

 

However, Defendant’s alternative Motion to Compel Further Responses to the Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.  Plaintiff CLARITA ESTEBAN is ordered to serve full and complete, properly verified responses, without objections, within ten days of service of the notice of entry of order. 

 

It appears that Plaintiff’s daughter, Editha Abugnag, holds a valid power of attorney for Plaintiff that bears her notarized signature.  (Decl. Abugnag, Exhibit A.)  However, if Ms. Abugnag is verifying Plaintiff’s discovery responses in that capacity, her signature block should so state.  Ms. Abugnag’s current attempt to supplement Plaintiff’s discovery responses by way of declarations is insufficient; proper complete supplemental responses must be served. 

 

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $656.25 is GRANTED.  This amount, along with the $860.00 in prior sanctions that have not yet been paid by Plaintiff, must be paid no later than ten days after service of the notice of entry of order.    

 

Should Plaintiff continue to fail to comply with the Court’s orders, Defendant may bring a renewed motion for terminating sanctions. 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

6. MOTION TERMINATING SANCTIONS, ISSUE SANCTIONS AND OR TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions with respect to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is DENIED.

Defendant J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’s Motion for Issue Sanctions with respect to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is DENIED.

 

However, Defendant’s alternative Motion to Compel Further Responses to the Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.  Plaintiff CLARITA ESTEBAN is ordered to serve full and complete, properly verified responses, without objections, within ten days of service of the notice of entry of order. 

 

It appears that Plaintiff’s daughter, Editha Abugnag, holds a valid power of attorney for Plaintiff that bears her notarized signature.  (Decl. Abugnag, Exhibit A.)  However, if Ms. Abugnag is verifying Plaintiff’s discovery responses in that capacity, her signature block should so state.  Ms. Abugnag’s current attempt to supplement Plaintiff’s discovery responses by way of declarations is insufficient; proper complete supplemental responses must be served.

 

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $656.25 is GRANTED.  This amount, along with the $860.00 in prior sanctions that have not yet been paid by Plaintiff, must be paid no later than ten days after service of the notice of entry of order. 

 

Should Plaintiff continue to fail to comply with the Court’s orders, Defendant may bring a renewed motion for terminating sanctions. 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 



9:00

Line: 7

CIV535322     FERNANDO HERISQUIO, ET AL. VS. MICHELLE MARILYN

                 VINNICOMEBE

 

 

FERNANDO HESIQUIO                     JUAN M. SIMON

MICHELLE MARILYN VINNICOMEBE          KATHRYN M. CARROLL

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Off calendar at the request of the moving party.

 



9:00

LineS: 8 - 11

CIV535914      SHANE J. TUSCH, ET AL. VS. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, ET AL.

 

ELIZABETH SCHUMANN-TUSCH              MANDIP S. PUREWAL

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

 

 

8. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO NATIONSTAR'S FIRST SET OF: FORM INTERROGATORIES; SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF SHANE J. TUSCH

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage’s unopposed Motion to Compel plaintiff Shane Tusch to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories [Set 1], and Special Interrogatories [Set 1] is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2030.290.  

 

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage’s unopposed Motion to Compel plaintiff Shane Tusch to provide Responses to Request for Production of Documents [Set 1], is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2031.260.

 

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage’s unopposed Request for Sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §§2023.010(d); 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) in the amount of $330.00.

 

Plaintiff Shane Tusch shall provide verified responses without objection to Defendant Nationstar Mortgage’s Form Interrogatories [Set 1], Special Interrogatories [Set 1] and the Request for Production of Documents [Set One] within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order. Plaintiff Shane Tusch shall pay monetary sanctions to defendant Nationstar Mortgage in the amount of $330 within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 

 

9. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO ITS FIRST SET OF: FORM INTERROGATORIES; SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR PRODUCTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF SHANE J. TUSCH    

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant Bank of New York Mellon’s unopposed Motion to Compel plaintiff Shane Tusch to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories [Set 1], and Special Interrogatories [Set 1] is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2030.290.  

 

Defendant Bank of New York Mellon’s unopposed Motion to Compel plaintiff Shane Tusch to provide Responses  to Request for Production of Documents [Set 1], is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2031.260.

 

Defendant Bank of New York Mellon’s unopposed Request for Sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §§2023.010(d); 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) in the amount of $330.00.

 

Plaintiff Shane Tusch shall provide verified responses without objection to Defendant Bank of New York Mellon’s Form Interrogatories [Set 1], Special Interrogatories [Set 1] and the Request for Production of Documents [Set One] within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order. Plaintiff Shane Tusch shall pay monetary sanctions to defendant Bank of New York Mellon in the amount of $330 within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO ITS FIRST SET OF FORM INTERROGATORIES; SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH SCHUMANN-TUSCH   

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage’s unopposed Motion to Compel plaintiff Elizabeth Schumann-Tusch to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories [Set 1], and Special Interrogatories [Set 1] is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2030.290. 

 

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage’s unopposed Motion to Compel plaintiff Elizabeth Schumann-Tusch to provide Responses  to Request for Production of Documents [Set 1], is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2031.260.

 

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage’s unopposed Request for Sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §§2023.010(d); 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) in the amount of $330.00.

 

Plaintiff Elizabeth Schumann-Tusch shall provide verified responses without objection to Defendant Nationstar Mortgage’s Form Interrogatories [Set 1], Special Interrogatories [Set 1] and the Request for Production of Documents [Set One] within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order. Plaintiff Elizabeth Schumann-Tusch shall pay monetary sanctions to defendant Nationstar Mortgage in the amount of $330 within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 

11. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO NATIONSTAR'S FIRST SET OF: FORM INTERROGATORIES; SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH SCHUMANN-TUSCH   

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant Bank of New York Mellon’s unopposed Motion to Compel plaintiff Elizabeth Schumann-Tusch to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories [Set 1], and Special Interrogatories [Set 1] is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2030.290.  

 

Defendant Bank of New York Mellon’s unopposed Motion to Compel plaintiff Elizabeth Schumann-Tusch to provide Responses  to Request for Production of Documents [Set 1], is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2031.260.

 

Defendant Bank of New York Mellon’s unopposed Request for Sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §§2023.010(d); 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) in the amount of $330.00.

 

Plaintiff Elizabeth Schumann-Tusch shall provide verified responses without objection to Defendant Bank of New York Mellon’s Form Interrogatories [Set 1], Special Interrogatories [Set 1] and the Request for Production of Documents [Set One] within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order. Plaintiff Elizabeth Schumann-Tusch shall pay monetary sanctions to defendant Bank of New York Mellon in the amount of $330 within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 



9:00

Line: 12

CIV536707     HELEN MARK, ET AL. VS. KRISTOPHER CALDWELL, ET AL.

 

 

HELEN MARK                            NATHANIEL M. LEEDS

KRISTOPHER CHARLES CALDWELL           CHRISTOPHER W. RIVERA

 

 

MOTION FOR FINANCIAL DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE SECTION 3295(c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiffs’ motion to conduct pretrial financial discovery of defendant Kristopher Caldwell is GRANTED.  Plaintiffs have provided evidence demonstrating a substantial probability they will prevail on their claim for punitive damages under Civ. Code Sect. 3294. Civ. Code Sect. 3295(c).  Without addressing the merits of Defendant’s Fifth Amendment argument, the Court orders that Plaintiffs shall wait to conduct the requested financial discovery until after Defendant is sentenced in the criminal case.  The sentencing should render Defendant’s objections moot.  The asset declaration Defendant previously provided does not preclude Plaintiffs from conducting further discovery on this issue.  The Court notes that Defendant’s opposition refers generally to a discovery stay pending “resolution” of the criminal case.  The Court declines to address this issue as no party has filed a motion to stay. 

 

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

Line: 13

CIV537136     JENNIFER ZUCCA VS. GENERAL MOTORS LLC

 

 

JENNIFER ZUCCA                        STEVE MIKHOV

GENERAL MOTORS LLC                    AMY L. SJOLANDER

 

 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Off calendar at the request of the moving party.

 


 

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, December 6, 2016

 

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

Line: 1

16-CIV-00268     DONALD JOSEPH KENNEDY vs. MUATH "MATT" ZGHOUL, et al.

 

 

DONALD JOSEPH KENNEDY                 CARY KLETTER

MUATH "MATT" ZGHOUL                   EDAWRD C. SINGER, JR.

 

 

MOTION for TRIAL PREFERENCE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion for Preference is DENIED.  The Court nevertheless intends to set a jury trial within 120 days.  The parties should meet and confer and appear tomorrow with an agreed trial date within 120 days.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County