August 27, 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

 

AUGUST 26, 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 514020       JEAN WHITE VS. MICHAEL C. TURNER, ET AL.

 

 

JEAN WHITE                            STEWART J. SCHWARTZ

MICHAEL C. TURNER

 

 

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY JEAN WHITE

 

 

·         This matter will be heard on August 26, 2014 at 9:00 A.M. in Department PJ before Presiding Judge Robert D Foiles.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

2

CIV 522597       WOODHAVEN, LLC VS. ALLEN AND JULIA LARSON FAMILY,

                   L.P., ET AL.

 

 

WOODHAVEN, LLC                        BROCK R. LYLE

ALLEN AND JULIA LARSON FAMILY, L.P.   NORMAN MATTEONI

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT BY ALLEN AND JULIA LARSON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ALLEN LARSON AND JULIA LARSON

 

 

·         Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(a).

 

·         “The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.”  Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.  Unless the granting of the motion would prejudice the opposing party, it is error to deny leave to amend.  Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.  Here, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants will not suffer prejudice as a result of this amendment.  The trial date has not been set, and the parties have only just begun the discovery process.  Further, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants were on notice of the facts underlying the cause of action added in Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ Third Amended Cross-Complaint as the same facts were alleged in Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ original Cross-Complaint filed on September 6, 2013. 

 

·         Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants’ argument that Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ cause of action for damage to trees is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel is unavailing.  The Court’s May 8, 2014 Order granting Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants’ Motion to Strike was on procedural grounds only and did not bar Defendants from properly seeking leave to amend to add the cause of action for damage to trees.

 

·         Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants’ arguments that the cause of action for damage to trees is defective are also unavailing.  The cause of action for damage to trees can be alleged separately from a trespass action as it requires the additional specific element of damage to trees.  CCP § 733; Cal. Civ. Code § 3346.  Further, the statement that “Cross-Defendants or their agents state they were confused about the property line” does show that Defendants/Cross-Complainants admit Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants’ confusion.  It simply admits that Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants made a statement about their alleged confusion.

 

·         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 526538       LUIS N. ZAVALA, ET AL. VS. US BANK, ET AL.

 

 

LUIS N. ZAVALA                        COLLEEN B. KELLEY

US BANK                               JASON M. RICHARDSON

 

 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER GRANTING DEMURRER WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT BY LUIS N. ZAVALA AND ROSAISELA GOMEZ-ZAVALA

 

 

·         This matter is moot.  Since the Judgment of Dismissal, signed by Judge Lisa A. Novak, was entered on July 18, 2014, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this motion.  Any motion to set aside the judgment of dismissal should be specially set in Department 13 before the Honorable Judge Novak.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

4

CIV 527064       ROXANNE PEDRO VS. BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL

                   DISTRICT, ET AL.

 

 

ROXANNE PEDRO                         MARC R. LEWIS

BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL DISTRICT JOHN A. SHUPE

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRST Amended COMPLAINT of PEDRO BY BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANNE CAMPBELL, JEFFREY KEUSCHER, JAYNE CHELBERG AND

DANIEL LYTTLE

 

 

·         This matter was continued from July 23, 2014 for further arguments by the parties on the issue of whether Defendants Belmont-Redwood Shores School District, Anne Campbell, Jeffrey Keuscher, Jayne Chelberg and Daniel Lyttle’s Demurrer to the negligence causes of action in the First Amended Complaint [Causes of Action 1 – 5] should be sustained without leave to amend as the Court set forth in its tentative ruling issued previously.  The parties are ordered to appear at the hearing at 9:00 a.m.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

5

CIV 528701       BENJAMIN PUENTES VS. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC., ET

                   AL.

 

 

BENJAMIN PUENTES                      JAMIE EDWARDS QUADRA

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC.

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of PUENTES BY WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

 

 

·         The Demurrer as to the Negligence Cause of Action is sustained with leave to amend so that Plaintiff can allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, including:  facts demonstrating that this cause of action is not barred by the Statute of Limitations; facts demonstrating that Wells Fargo had a duty of care to Plaintiff and facts demonstrating that Wells Fargo breached that duty of care to Plaintiff. 

 

·         Plaintiff’s amended pleading shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days after service 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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

6

CLJ 208223       POLYMATHIC PROPERTIES, INC. VS. AKHENATON HASSAN

                   SMITH, ET AL.

 

 

POLYMATHIC PROPERTIES, INC.           MIKE HOGAN

AKHENATON HASSAN SMITH                CHARLES T. RAMSEY

 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 473 AND REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT BY AKHENATON HASSAN SMITH

 

 

·         Defendant Akhenaton Hassan Smith is currently in default.  The Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Request for Reinstatement seeks to set aside the March 7, 2014 Order by the Honorable Lisa A. Novak striking the Defendant’s Answer and entering his default.  As such, the moving party is directed to contact Department 13 at (650) 261-5113 to obtain a special set hearing date to have this motion heard before the Honorable Judge Novak.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

7

CLJ 209755       EDWARD SOUTER vs. RONALD PORTER SMITH, et al.

 

 

EDWARD SOUTER                         ANDRES SANCHEZ

RONALD PORTER SMITH                   KENNETH B. WILSON

 

 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BY RONALD PORTER SMITH AND DOLLY SMITH

 

 

·         Attorneys for both parties are ordered to appear at the hearing with their calendars in order to set mutually agreeable deposition dates with Plaintiff's deposition taking place first, which shall be set forth in the Order.

 

·         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

CLJ 512161       HARVEY BLIGHT VS. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ET AL.

 

 

HARVEY BLIGHT                         PRO/PER

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO                   BRIAN J. WONG

 

 

MOTION FOR CHALLENGE TO JUDGE BUCKWALD ORDER OF 12/10/13 ANY DISMISSAL REQUEST OTHER THAN A ORDER BY HARVEY BLIGHT AGAINST JUDGE BUCKWALD A DISQUALIFIED JUDGE PETITION UNDER CCP 170.1-8 AND PETITION TO REVERSE ERROR ON HARVEY BLIGHT DISMISSAL ACTION, ETC. BY HARVEY BLIGHT

 

 

·         Plaintiff Harvey Blight’s Motion for Challenge to Judge Buchwald’s Order of December 10, 2013 is DENIED.  Plaintiff has not filed a Proof of Service of the motion as required by CCP §§ 1005, 1010, et seq.  Plaintiff Harvey Blight’s motion does not comply with CCP § 1010 and CRC 3.110 because the Notice of Motion does not notify all parties of the date, time and location of the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss.  In addition, the Notice of Motion does not state the relief sought and the grounds for granting such relief.  Finally, Plaintiff has not submitted any competent or admissible evidence in support of the motion.

 

·         The clerk is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Court's tentative ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to CRC 3.1312, and provide notice thereof to all counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court. 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

9

CLJ 517674       HARVEY BLIGHT VS. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ET AL.

 

 

HARVEY BLIGHT                         PRO/PER

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO                   JOHN C. BEIERS

 

 

MOTION TO CHALLENGE DENIAL OF WRIT OF MANDATE, REVERSAL ON TENTATIVE RULINGS AND QUASH OF SUBPOENA AND PETITION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY; CHANGE OF VENUE AND JURY TRIAL; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS ANSWERS PRESENTED TO WITNESSES BY HARVEY BLIGHT

 

 

·         Plaintiff Harvey Blight’s motion entitled “Notice and Motion to Challenge Denial of Writ of Mandate; Reversal On Tentative Rulings and Quash of Subpoena and Petition to Reopen Discovery; Change of Venue and Jury Trial; Motion to Compel Depositions Answers Presented to Witnesses” is DENIED.  This action was dismissed with prejudice on December 13, 2013.  Mr. Blight has filed a Notice of Appeal of that dismissal.  Plaintiff has not filed a Proof of Service of the motion as required by CCP §§ 1005, 1010, et seq.  Further, the motion does not comply with CCP § 1010 and CRC 3.110 because the Notice of Motion does not notify all parties of the date, time and location of the hearing on the motion.  The Notice of Motion does not state the relief sought and the grounds for granting such relief.  Finally, Plaintiff has not submitted any competent or admissible evidence in support of the motion.

 

·         The Clerk is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Court's tentative ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to CRC 3.1312, and provide notice thereof to all counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court. 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

10

CLJ 523616       COUNTY OF SAN MATEO VS. MARY PREM

 

 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO                   JOHN C. BEIERS

MARY PREM                             PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO COMPLAINT of COUNTY OF SAN MATEO BY COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

 

 

·         Plaintiff County of San Mateo’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.  Plaintiff has met its initial burden pursuant to CCP § 437c(p)(1) through the written Conditions of Admissions and Services Form [Exhibit B to the Declaration of Everett Morgan]; the declaration of counsel Eugene Whitlock and the declaration of Diane Gramse, the Manager of Billing and Collections for the San Mateo County Medical Center.  Their Separate Statement of Material Facts establishes the elements of breach of contract as set forth in California Forms of Pleading and Practice § 140.55.

 

·         The burden then shifts to Defendant to create a triable issue of material fact.  Defendant has not done so.  Defendant has not filed a substantive opposition.  Defendant has not filed a separate statement in opposition.  Defendant has submitted no evidence that actually raises a material factual issue. 

 

·         Defendant has not objected to any of Plaintiff's evidence so it stands unrefuted and admissible.  The Plaintiff’s evidence establishes the amount of the debt, and Defendant has not presented any evidence to refute it.

 

·         Although Defendant has stated in her Opposition that she was not properly served with the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court notes that in Defendant’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication, Defendant acknowledged that she learned of the hearing for the motion, which was originally set for May 7, 2014, by visiting the Court’s website.  At that time, Defendant stated she had not been afforded the time needed to prepare and file a timely response.  On May 5, 2014, the Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to continue the hearing date to July 28, 2014 due to the problem with the service of the motion and to give Defendant Mary Prem the opportunity to oppose the motion substantively.  On July 18, 2014, the Court granted the parties’ second joint stipulation to continue the hearing date to August 26, 2014 due to the unavailability of Defendant Prem.  Since that time, Defendant Prem has not filed a substantive opposition to the motion.

 

·         Judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of $19,068.75 (principal) and pre-judgment interest at the rate of 10% per annum from January 11, 2012 to August 26, 2014. 

 

·         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.

 


 

 

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 ROBERT D FOILES

Department 21

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2J

 

AUGUST 26, 2014

 

If you plan to appear on any case on this calendar,

 you must call (650) 261-5121 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 515621       PARK PLAZA TOWERS OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. PATRICK

                   MCERLAIN, ET AL.

 

 

PARK PLAZA TOWERS OWNERS ASSOCIATION  GRANT H. BAKER

PATRICK MCERLAIN                      RICHARD S. BAUM

 

 

MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE BY PATRICK MCERLAIN AND NANCY MCERLAIN

 

 

·         APPEAR.  Defendants’ Motion for Trial Continuance is GRANTED. Parties shall appear to select a new trial date.  

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

2

CIV 521502       SST HOSPITALITY, LLC VS. GORDON ASSOCIATES INSURANCE

                   SERVICES, INC.

 

 

SST HOSPITALITY, LLC                  TIM O'CONNOR

GORDON ASSOCIATES INSURANCE SERVICES  RONALD D. ECHEGUREN

 

 

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE BY COASTAL BROKERS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

 

 

·         APPEAR.  Cross-Defendant Coastal Brokers Insurance Services, Inc.’s Motion for Trial Continuance is GRANTED.  Parties shall appear to select a new trial date.  

 


 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County