January 28, 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, January 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 458258       DAVID MELCHER VS. ELIZABETH KARNAZES

 

 

DAVID MELCHNER                        PRO/PER

ELIZABETH KARNAZES                    PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS INCURRED FROM 01/01/14 - 09/30/14 BY JOHN J. HARTFORD

 

 

·         Continued to February 18, 2015 at 9:00a.m. in Dept. LM.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 508888       CINDY K. HUNG, ET AL. VS. TRIBAL TECHNOLOGIES, ET AL.

 

 

CINDY K. HUNG                         LYNDA HUNG

TRIBAL TECHNOLOGIES                   KASEY C. TOWNSEND

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT BY JOSEPH PETER VIERRA AND VICTORIA DINOVICH

 

 

·         Continued to February 11, 2015 at 9:00a.m. in Dept. LM on the Court’s motion.

 

 

DEMURRER TO 5th Amended COMPLAINT of HUNG BY JOSEPH PETER VIERRA AND VICTORIA DINOVICH

 

 

·         See above.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 521596       ADELE SPIVAK VS. ROSS STORES, ET AL.

 

 

ADELE SPIVAK                          GERALD H. SCHER

ROSS STORES, INC.                     MARK E. DAVIS

 

 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR DELAY IN PROSECUTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SCANTIONC BY ROSS STORES, INC.

 

 

·         The unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute by Defendant Ross Stores is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 583.410. CCP §583.410 and CRC 3.1342 provide that the Court can dismiss an action for delay in prosecution if it appears appropriate under the circumstances. In ruling on such a Motion, the Court may consider the diligence of the parties in pursuing discovery.[ CRC 3.1342(e)(4)]. Plaintiff has not been diligent in litigating this matter and in particular has not been diligent in responding to discovery. Although represented by counsel, Plaintiff has failed to provide responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories [Set 1] and the Request for Statement of Damages. More than eight months have passed since the discovery responses were due and neither Plaintiff nor her attorney has made any effort to provide discovery responses, respond to communications from Defendant’s counsel or even to respond to this Motion. Under these circumstances, the Court is granting the Defendant’s Motion to dismiss pursuant to CCP§583.410.

 

·         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

4

CIV 526203       VLADIMIR G. LAZARO VS. MARIQUIT G. LAZARO, ET AL.

 

 

VLADIMIR G. LAZARO                    EDWARD W. SUMAN

MARIQUIT G. LAZARO                    JEFFREY P. WOO

 

 

MOTION TO ALLOW PENDING ACTION TO BE CONTINUED BY DECEDENT'S SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR & SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST BY Vladi Miguel S. Lazaro

 

 

·         The Court notes that Judge Elizabeth K. Lee originally heard this Motion on December 23, 2014 and continued the hearing to allow the parties to submit supplemental briefs.  The Court further notes that this matter is set in the Probate Dept. of this Court for hearing regarding appointment of a special administrator on March 6, 2015.   The continued hearing, if necessary, on this Motion should be heard by Judge Elizabeth K. Lee after the March 6, 2015 Probate Court hearing.  The parties are to contact Judge Lee’s department (650-261-5117) to obtain a hearing date.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 528264       LITTLE GREEN CYCLO, LLC VS. BAY AREA MOBILE CATERING,

                   INC.. ET AL.

 

 

LITTLE GREEN CYCLO, LLC               BAO-QUAN P. PHAM

BAY AREA MOBILE CATERING, INC.        MICHAEL MELCHIN

 

 

DEMURRER TO 2nd Amended CROSS-COMPLAINT of ANGELICA GONZALES BY LITTLE GREEN CYCLO LLC, QUYNH NGUYEN AND MONICA WONG

 

 

  • The Demurrer as to the First Cause of Action (Assault) is OVERRULED.

 

  • The Demurrer as to Little Green Cyclo (“LGC”) is OVERRULED.  The Second Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that Ms. Wong was doing business as LGC when the Commissary Rental Agreement was entered into. The Court declines to rule on the Demurrer as to Ms. Nguyen because the Second Cause of Action contains no charging allegations against Ms. Nguyen.

 

  • The Demurrer as to the 4th Cause of Action (Unfair Business Practices) is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND so that Cross-Complainants can allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action under Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, including, the facts constituting the basis of the claim, and proper relief allowed under the statute. 

 

  • Cross-Complainants’ amended cross-complaint shall be filed and served within 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 528621       TANIA SOLE VS CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, ET AL.

 

 

TANIA SOLE                            PRO/PER

CITY OF REDWOOD CITY                  KEVIN D. SIEGEL

 

 

DEMURRER TO 1st Amended PETITION of TANIA SOLE BY CITY OF REDWOOD CITY

 

 

Demurrer to the 1st Amended Petition / Complaint by Respondent / Defendant CITY OF REDWOOD CITY is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND in its entirety, as follows:

 

  • As to the First Cause of Action for Petition for Writ of Mandate, on the ground that Petitioner / Plaintiff TANIA SOLE has not demonstrated that the CITY owed a ministerial duty, in obedience to any legal authority, to permit a sewer connection for her houseboat.  [U.S. Ecology v. State (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 113, 138].  Petitioner further fails to demonstrate that the CITY’s actions in denying a permit were “arbitrary, capricious or entirely lacking in evidentiary support” to be entitled to a writ under Code Civ. Proc. § 1085. [Sacks v. City of Oakland (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1082].

 

  • As to the Second Cause of Action for declaratory relief, on the ground that Petitioner’s exclusive remedy in challenging an administrative decision is her petition for writ of mandate. [Tejon Real Estate, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 149, 152-53].  Since her writ claim fails, her cause of action for declaratory relief must also fail.  [Golden Gate Water Ski Club v. County of Contra Costa (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 249, 266]. 

 

  • As to the Third Cause of Action for due process violations, on the ground that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the CITY denied her any property interest.  Even if such an interest were established, however, her Petition shows that neither procedural nor substantive due process violations occurred.  Petitioner was given ample notice of the unpermitted sewer connection and opportunity to respond, and thus no procedural due process violations occurred.  [Perez v. City of San Bruno (1980) 27 Cal.3d 875, 894-95].  Further, as evidenced by the extensive communications between Petitioner and the CITY, attached as Exhibit “B” to the Petition, the CITY provided reasonable explanations for why the sewer connection needed to be removed.  Petitioner thus does not demonstrate any substantive due process violations, as there is no “abuse of governmental power that shocks the conscience” or that lacks any arguably legitimate rationale. [Kawaoka v. City of Arroyo Grande (9th Cir. 1994) 17 F.3d 1227, 1234]. 

 

  • As to the Fourth Cause of Action for injunctive relief, as a claim for injunctive relief is not an independent cause of action. [City of Tiburon v. Northwestern Pac. R.R. Co. (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 1160, 178].  As Petitioner is unable to state a viable cause of action, this claim necessarily fails. 

 

  • As Petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating that her petition is capable of amendment, leave to amend is denied. [Washington v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 890].

 

  • The CITY’s Request for Judicial Notice and Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice are GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code § 452. 

 

  • 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 529663       REETA SINGH, ET AL. VS. RAMESHWAR SINGH

 

 

REETA SINGH                           ROBERT G. HOWIE

RAMESHWAR SINGH                       BETTY Y. MAC

 

 

DEMURRER TO 2nd Amended COMPLAINT of REETA AND RONIL SINGH BY RAMESHWAR SINGH

 

 

  • Defendant Rameshwar Singh’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.  The Second Amended Complaint alleges facts and legal theories with sufficient clarity to put the Defendant on notice of the basis for the lawsuit.

 

  • Demurring Defendant shall file his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint no later than February 13, 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

8

CIV 529807       RICARDO MARTINEZ VS. WALTER PALACIOS JR., ET AL.

 

 

RICARDO MARTINEZ                      EMILY FOWLER

WALTER PALACIOS JR.                   JEFF B. ATTERBURY

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER QUASHING DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES BY RICARDO MARTINEZ

 

 

·         The Motion to Quash is GRANTED.  Plaintiff’s employment/personnel records are protected by the right to privacy.  Based on Plaintiff’s indication that he is not making a wage loss claim, which the Court construes to include any claim of lost earning capacity, Defendants have not shown a compelling need for the records that outweighs Plaintiff’s privacy interest.  While Defendants argue the records may contain information relating to the severity of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries, there are other sources where Defendants can obtain such information.

 

·         The request for Sanctions by the parties are DENIED.

 

·         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

9

CIV 531873       JANE DOE I, ET AL. VS. DANIELLE CHETRIT, ET AL.

 

 

JANE DOE I                            JIM ERICKSON

DANIELLE CHETRIT

 

 

MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AS "JANE DOE I" AND "JANE DOE II" BY JANE DOE I, JANE DOE II

 

 

·         Plaintiffs Jane Doe I and Jane Doe II’s Motion to Proceed Anonymously is GRANTED.  Exceptional circumstances that justify protecting a Plaintiff’s identity include matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature [Doe v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal App 4th 750, 754] or where the injury sought to be avoided by the complaint [e.g. invasion of privacy] would be incurred by disclosure of plaintiff’s true identity. [See Doe v. Lincoln Unified School District,(2010) 188 Cal App 4th 758, 767]. Those matters are present in this case – the Plaintiff is a minor and the subject of the case is defamation concerning the Plaintiff’s supposed sexual practices. The case itself is about the publication of her identity and thus includes invasion of her privacy.

 

·         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

10

CLJ 210519       DOUGLAS C. VIERTH, ET AL. VS. LISA A. VIERTH

 

 

DOUGLAS C. VIERTH                     DAVID M. SLOAN

LISA A. VIERTH

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY LISA A. VIERTH

 

 

·         Appear.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

11

CLJ 468937       TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP VS. MARSHALL A. MASOLI

 

 

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION       RAYMOND A. PATENAUDE

MARSHALL A. MASOLI

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY MARSHALL A. MASOLI

 

 

  • Defendant MARSHALL A. MASOLI’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant’s Default was taken on July 21, 2009 and has never been set aside. A Default Judgment was entered on August 6, 2009 and has never been set aside. Instead of moving to set aside his default, Defendant has filed a Motion to Quash. However, entry of a default judgment ousts the Court of jurisdiction to consider any Motion other than a Motion for relief from default. [W.A. Rose Co. v. Mun. Ct. (1959) 176 Cal. App. 2d 67, 71; Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal App. 3d 381, 385-86]. In this matter, Defendant failed to move to set aside the default, thus no Motion can be heard regarding quashing service because Defendant is not properly before the Court.

 

  • 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

12

CLJ 508943       SETON MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

                   DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

 

 

SETON MEDICAL CENTER                  WARREN R. WEBSTER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA                   CHARLES J. ANTONEN

 

 

MOTION TO PERMIT JUDITH GUILFOYLE AND BILL RODENSPIEL TO TESTIFY BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

 

 

·         The Motion by Defendant State of California Department of Public Health to Permit Judith Guilfoyle and Bill Rodenspiel to Testify is DENIED without prejudice. The Department did not meet the standards required for disclosure of records or testimony under Welfare & Institutions Code §§9715 and 9725. They have provided no evidence that the requested testimony is relevant, necessary to enforcement of the laws or that there is a compelling need for the testimony. [See Ombudsman Services of Northern California v. Superior Court (2007) 154 Cal App 4th 1233, 1248].

 

·         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.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County