March 30, 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

Wednesday, March 25, 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 512814       KASHIWA FUDOSAN AMERICA, INC. VS. SAMUEL H. WONG &             

                   COMPANY, LLP., ET AL.

 

 

KASHIWA FUDOSAN AMERICA, INC.         TODD A. ROBERTS

SAMUEL H. WONG & COMPANY, LLP.        DANIEL BERKO

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT BY KASHIWA FUDOSAN AMERICA, INC.

 

 

·         GRANTED as to Samuel H. Wong & Company, LLP.  DENIED as to Samuel H. Wong, an individual, as Summary Judgment to the sole Cause of Action in which he was named, was granted by Judge Buchwald with Judgment of Dismissal filed September 30, 2014.  This ruling shall not prohibit Plaintiff from filing a separate action on an alternate theory of liability.

·         Moving party may file serve an Amended Complaint, consistent with its proposed Amended Complaint but without Samuel H. Wong, an individual, as a Defendant, no later than April 8, 2015.

·         Moving party is directed to prepare a written order…

 

 

___________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 516255       CAMILLE SANTANA, ET AL. VS. KIN THOR PANG, ET AL.

 

 

CAMILLE SANTANA                          JAYMEE FAITH CADIZ SAGISI

KIN THOR PANG                            KEVIN K. CHOLAKIAN

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT KYON TEO'S DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO DEPOSITION NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY CAMILLE SANTANA

 

 

·         The Motion to Compel Defendant Kyon Teo to appear for his deposition is GRANTED.  Defendant shall appear for his deposition on a mutually agreed upon date within 30 days.  In the event the parties cannot agree on a date and time, the deposition shall be held on April 24, 2015 commencing at 10:00a.m. at the offices of Plaintiff’s counsel.

 

·         The Motion is DENIED to the extent plaintiffs seek an order compelling defendant to produce documents as the motion does not set forth specific facts showing good cause for the production.  CCP §2025.450(b)(1). 

 

·         The request for sanctions is also DENIED.

 

·         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 516550       IAR SYSTEMS SOFTWARE, INC. VS. NADIM SHEHAYED, ET AL.

 

 

IAR SYSTEMS SOFTWARE, INC.,           ANTONIO VALLA

NADIM SHEHAYED                        JEFFREY M/ CURTISS

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO NON-PARTY PRICE WATERHOUSE CIIOERS, LLP BY IAR SYSTEMS SOFTWARE, INC.,

 

 

  • The Motion by IAR systems AB to Quash the Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum to non-party Price Waterhouse Coopers LLP is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the grounds that it is untimely (CCP §2024.020(a)).  The hearing for this motion is set 12 days before trial and the movant has not brought a motion to reopen discovery.

 

  • 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 C Scott, Department 25.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 518271       MICHAEL MYERS, ET AL. VS. GEORGE CRESSON, ET AL.

 

 

MICHAEL MYERS                         JEFFREY H BELOTE

GEORGE CRESSON                        PAUL F UTRECHT

 

 

MOTION TO SEVER CRESSON'S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY AGAINST LOANVEST INTIL THE APPEAL IS RESOLVED BY GEORGE CRESSON

 

 

  • The Motion to Sever their Cross-Complaint for indemnity against LOANVEST XI, LP from trial of Plaintiffs’ main action by Defendants / Cross-Complainants SOUTH BAY REAL ESTATE COMMERCE GROUP, LLP and GEORGE CRESSON is DENIED.  The Court finds that the goals of severing an action pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(b), such as the furtherance of convenience, the avoidance of prejudice, or judicial expedition and economy, will not be met if the cross-complaint is severed from trial of Plaintiffs’ complaint. 

 

  • Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5(a) is DENIED.

 

  • 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

5

CIV 519064       JACKIEJO LOPEZ, ET AL. VS. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

                   DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

 

 

JACKIEJO LOPEZ                           GREGORY S. WALSTON

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

 

 

MOTION TO FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF EDWARD MILLER BY SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

 

 

  • The Motion for Terminating Sanctions by Defendants is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2023.010. See CCP §§ 2023.030(d)(1), (4), 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c). Defendants have more than adequately demonstrated plaintiff’s repeated failures to respond to discovery or to obey court orders compelling discovery, his deposition, and monetary sanctions throughout this action.  Most recently, on January 7, 2015 this court ordered plaintiff Miller to provide supplemental responses to the discovery by January 30, 2015 and to pay monetary sanctions of $550 no later than January 23, 2015. Mr. Miller has failed to provide both the court ordered discovery and the monetary sanctions. Plaintiff has also has continued to refuse to attend his deposition, despite being ordered to do so by the court. He has refused to comply with the court’s order for monetary sanctions. This is a sufficient misuse of the discovery process to warrant terminating sanctions.  Plaintiff Miller’s Complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

  • 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 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

6

CIV 520065       JOHN MOLLOY, ET AL. VS. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS,

                   ET AL.

 

 

JOHN MOLLOY                           PRO/PER

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS           YVONNE M. PIERROU

 

 

HEARING ON PETITION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ALLOW CLAIM FOR

PUNITIVE DAMAGES FILED BY JOHN MOLLOY

 

 

  • Plaintiff’s Petition to Amend Complaint to Allow Claim for Punitive Damages is DENIED without prejudice to submit to the arbitrator. The case has been referred to arbitration and any motions shall be considered by the arbitrator, not the Court.

 

  • The prevailing party 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 to provide notice thereof to 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

7

CIV 522390       ANDY SABERI VS. SAEED GHAFOORI, ET AL.

 

 

ANDY SABERI                           DONALD F. DRUMMOND

SAEED GHAFOORI                        ORESTES A. CROSS

 

 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINTY BY ANDY SABERI

 

 

  • The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the 1st through the 7th Causes of Action is DENIED pursuant to Corp. Code section 16405(b)(3).

 

  • The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the 8th Cause of Action is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to all Cross-complainant to properly allege facts to constitute a claim pursuant to Corp. Code section 16701(i).

 

  • Cross-Complainant shall file and serve an Amended Cross-Complaint, should he elect to do so, no later than April 8, 2015.

 

  • 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

8

CIV 527150       COSMO KLEINOW VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALTRANS,

                 ET AL.

 

 

COSMO KLEINOW                         JONATHAN M. RUTLEDGE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALTRANS          BELVIN KENT SMITH

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH CIVIL SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AT TRIAL BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO

 

 

·         Moot. Dismissal of Entire Action with prejudice was filed on February 26, 2015.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

9

CIV 530868       MAXIE SMITH VS JOHN HAWANA

 

 

MAXIE SMITH                           PRO/PER

JOHN HAWANA                           PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER FILED BY MAXIE SMITH

 

 

·         The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for untimely service. Service for law and motion must be at least 16 court days before the hearing. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1005.) If served by mail, the notice period is an additional five days. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1013.) The deadline for service for a March 25, 2015, hearing date was February 26, 2015. Plaintiff did not serve her motion until March 5, 2015.

 

·         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

10

CIV 531264       MARIE COMMICK, ET AL. VS. PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE

 

 

MARIE COMMICK                         EDWIN AIWAZIAN

PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP          LISA BARNETT SWEEN

 

 

DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT BY MARIE COMMICK

 

 

·         Plaintiff’s demurrer for uncertainty is OVERRULED as to the first, second, third, fourth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth affirmative defenses. The ultimate facts are pleaded with sufficient clarity that Plaintiff is apprised of the nature of the defense. Further specific information may be the subject of discovery.

 

·         Plaintiff’s demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the fifteenth affirmative defense.  The Answer’s contention that Plaintiff  failed to allege” facts necessary to maintain a class action is not an affirmative defense, since “alleging facts” is a pleading requirement, not an element of class certification.  Similarly, Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff “cannot prove” facts supporting class certification is an argument, not a factual matter.

·         Plaintiff’s demurrer to the first, fourth, fifth, sixteenth, and seventeenth affirmative defenses for failure to plead sufficient facts is OVERRULED. The ultimate facts are pleaded with sufficient clarity that Plaintiff is apprised of the nature of the defense. Further specific information may be the subject of discovery.

 

·         The Court disregards Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s arguments regarding the prayer for attorney’s fees and Defendant’s reserving rights to amend the answer. A demurrer to an Answer challenges the sufficiency of the affirmative defenses. Neither Defendant’s purported reservation of right to amend nor its request for attorney’s fees is an affirmative defense and therefore not subject to a demurrer. Further, neither issue is set forth in Plaintiff’s Demurrer or Notice of Demurrer.

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff 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.  

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:01

11

CIV 521687       TINA MARIE HOLEMAN VS. ENA MARIA LAL

 

 

TINA MARIE HOLEMAN                       DAVID W. WESSEL

ENA MARIA LAL                            BRIAN J. MCSHANE

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING THE DEPOSITION OF UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. AND THE INSPECTION OF THE UPS TRUCK AND REQUEST FOR AWARD OF SANCTIONS AGAINST UPS AND ITS LAWYERS BY TINA MARIE HOLEMAN

 

 

·         The motion for order compelling the deposition of United Parcel Service, Inc. and the Inspection of the UPS Truck and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

 

·         The Court finds that the demand to produce the exemplar truck for inspection in Portola Valley is unreasonable and unduly burdensome.  The remaining issues regarding production of persons most qualified are not in dispute.   The parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.

      

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Cross-complainant 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.

 

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY TINA MARIE HOLEMAN

 

·         The motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. While Plaintiff may not have been timely in making this motion, the policy of liberality in permitting amendment of pleadings at any stage outweighs prejudice to the Defendant.  

 

·         Any motion for continuance of the trial date should be made to the Department of the Presiding Judge.

 

·         Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice in support of its motion is DENIED. The materials submitted are irrelevant and not helpful to the Court.   

 

·         The parties are cautioned to comply with all of the California Rules of Court, specifically CRC 3.1113(d), which limits a reply brief to ten (10) pages.

 

·         Plaintiff shall file and serve her Second Amended Complaint, consistent with her proposed Second Amended complaint, no later than April 8, 2015

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Cross-complainant 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.

 

 

 

______________________________________________________­­­­­­­­_______________________________


 

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

 

Wednesday, March 25, 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 515705       ROBERTA JURASH, ET AL. VS. OTTO MILLER, ET AL.

 

 

ROBERTA JURASH                        SIMON A. MAZZOLA

OTTO MILLER                           DANIEL F. CROWLEY

 

 

COMPLEX CASE STATUS CONFERENCE.

 

 

·         The Court has been informed that the matter has settled. An OSC re: Dismissal is set for June 2, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 7.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 532269       I. WILLIAM WISER VS. S&T PROPERTIES, ET AL.

 

 

I. WILLIAM WISER                      MATTHEW LOUIS KARPINSKI

S&T PROPERTIES

 

 

COMPLEX CASE STATUS CONFERENCE

 

 

·         Complex Case Designation is DENIED, without prejudice.  Case Management Conference remains as set for May 29, 2015.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 532414       JANE ROE, ET AL VS. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY OF 

                   CALIFORNIA, LLC.

 

 

JANE ROE                              CHRISTIAN SCHREIBER

BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY OF CA., LLC

 

 

COMPLEX CASE STATUS CONFERENCE

 

 

·         This matter is deemed and designated complex, and is assigned to Judge Marie Weiner, Department 2, for all purposes.  The parties should contact Judge Weiner’s department at 650.261.5102 in order to obtain their next appearance date in the case.

 

 


 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County