TO GIVE THE COURT NOTICE OF YOUR INTENT TO APPEAR, or if you have questions or problems relating to your case, please contact us via telephone.
- Law and Motion Department Tentative Ruling Line: (650) 363-1882
- 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 LISA A. NOVAK
400 County Center, Redwood City
MARCH 12, 2014
IF YOU INTEND TO APPEAR ON ANY CASE ON THIS CALENDAR YOU MUST DO THE FOLLOWING:
1. YOU MUST CALL (650) 363-1882 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.
Case Title / Nature of Case
CIV 209079 ROIC CALIFORNIA, LLC VS. YU ZHEN CAI
ROIC CALIFORNIA, LLC SID M. ROSENBERG
YU ZHEN CAI MICHAEL B. ALLEN
DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT (UNLAWFUL DETAINER) of ROIC CALIFORNIA, LLC BY YU ZHEN CAI &MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT BY YU ZHEN CAI
· The demurrer is overruled. The motion to strike is denied.
· Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted as to (1) the Second Amended Complaint in Case Number CIV 207988 and (2) the fact that Plaintiff maintains an office in Rancho Cordova (fact not reasonably subject to dispute).
· Plaintiff has offices in Rancho Cordova and San Diego. The fact that one office is in Rancho Cordova does not compel the conclusion that Plaintiff, which is a limited liability company, was not “absent” from Sacramento County when the verification was signed. Exhibit B to Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice states that the San Diego office is the “corporate office.” Defendant offers no evidence that a client that has multiple offices in different counties compels the conclusion that the client is “present” in each of those counties at all times.
· Defendant’s contention that the “information and belief” qualification renders the verification ineffective is contrary to law. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 446, subd. (a) [“the attorney's or officer's affidavit shall state that he or she has read the pleading and that he or she is informed and believes the matters therein to be true.”]; League of Women Voters v. Eu (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 649, 656 [“Although a verification should normally relate to facts, such facts may be stated on information and belief”].)
· Defendant shall file and serve a verified Answer no later than March 18, 2014.
· If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for 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.
CIV 521181 SEQUOIA CLUB OF REDWOOD CITY, INC. VS. MARIO RADDAVER
SEQUOIA CLUB OF REDWOOD CITY, INC. CHARLES DREXLER
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT FILED BY SERGIO RADDAVERO
· This matter is continued until April 8, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.
CIV 521318 MR. GEARS, INC. VS. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.
MR. GEARS, INC. WALLACE C. DOOLITTLE
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. KURT C. WENDLENNER
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
· Defendant, Bank of America’s, Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories – Set Two is GRANTED. Defendant has established that it properly served Plaintiff a request for responses to Special Interrogatories Set Two in October 2013 after conceding its initial attempt at service was not successful. Defendant emailed a courtesy copy of this discovery with a statement to Plaintiff’s counsel that the material was being mailed that same day, October 21, 2013. Plaintiff did not respond to this request, and when contacted by Defendant, requested an extension. Defendant granted that extension until January 1, 2014. Plaintiff did not respond. Plaintiff argues that its failure to respond was mere inadvertence and not willful, claiming that the sought-after discovery never “made it into his file.” While that may be true, the onus on Defendant is to show proof of service, not proof that the request is in the appropriate file in Plaintiff’s office. A mere oversight by Plaintiff could have been cured by at least providing the responses to Defendant at some point, even after this motion was filed, but to date no responses have ever been provided.
· Plaintiff Mr. Gears, Inc., shall serve responses to the Special Interrogatories within 25 days after service of Notice of Entry of Order.
· Plaintiff’ counsel is ordered to pay Bank of America the amount of $532.00 as and for monetary sanctions
CIV 524313 RUTH ANN COUGOULE VS. EDWARD FONSECA, ET AL.
RUTH ANN COUGOULE KABATECK BROWN KELLNER, LLP
EDWARD FONSECA ALISON M. CRANE
MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT'S SUBPOENA TO SAN MATOE COUNTY, SHERIFF'S OFFICE BY RUTH ANN COUGOULE MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT'S SUBPOENA TO MENLO PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT BY RUTH ANN COUGOULE
· Moot. Notice of Dismissal filed by moving party.
CIV 524598 SIMON DAVID AVIEL VS. SCOTT DUCHIN, INC., ET AL.
SIMON DAVID AVIEL BRUCE M LUBARSKY
CHRISTINA WILLIAMSON CRAIG HARRIS COLLINS
MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINANTS' CLAIM FOR EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES BY SIMON DAVID AVIEL, JOANN BODELL AVIEL & DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT of WILLIAMSON BY SIMON DAVID AVIEL, JOANN BODELL AVIEL
· Moot. First Amended Cross Complaint filed February 20, 2014.
CIV 525132 QI SOLUTIONS, INC. VS. RIVAL WATCH ACQUISTION, LLC
QI SOLUTIONS, INC. GEORGE DUESDIEKER
RIVAL WATCH ACQUISTION, LLC DANIEL J. VECCHIO
DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of QI SOLUTIONS, INC. BY RIVAL WATCH ACQUISTION, LLC, HALE GLOBAL, QL2 SOFTWARE
· The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.
· California does not recognize a cause of action for negligent false promise. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 158-159. To the extent the First Amended Complaint could be construed to allege an intentional misrepresentation based on a false promise, plaintiff has not clearly alleged that Defendants had no intent to perform at the time the alleged promise was made.
· Plaintiff also fails to allege facts to show that it suffered any harm as a result of its reliance on the promise of payment. Plaintiff states that it continued to provide services based on the promise, but there is no allegation it was not paid for those services nor that it suffered any other harm from its reliance. The only loss mentioned in the First Amended Complaint is the loss of money promised to plaintiff. Assuming this is the money owed by Rival Watch, Inc., plaintiff had suffered this loss prior to any promise made by defendants.
· Moving party shall submit an order to the court per 3.1312. Plaintiff shall have 10 days to file an amended pleading after receipt of written notice of this order.
CLJ 513283 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO VS. MEENA DATTA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO EUGENE WHITLOCK
MEENA DATTA PRO/PER
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FILED BY COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
· This matter is continued until May 6, 2014 at 9:00a.m.
CLJ 521108 CACH, LLC VS. DEVITT S. BURRY
CACH, LLC CHRIS D. MANDARICH
DEVITT S. BURRY
MOTION TO CHANGE OF VENUE BY DEVITT S. BURRY
· Defendant’s motion for change of venue is GRANTED PER CCP 396A. While the court does have the proper subject matter jurisdiction, the proper venue for the trial is the County of San Francisco as Defendant has submitted evidence that is his county of residence. There is not opposition.
· Prevailing party is directed to prepare a written order per CRC 3.1312 and submit it directly to Department 13, Judge Novak, for signature. Defendant shall thereafter provide written notice to Plaintiff of this order.
CLJ 208854 MOAB INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC VS. WILLIAM POLLACK
MOAB INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC BRENDA CRUZ KEITH
WILLIAM POLLACK PRO/PER
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COMPALINT (UNLAWFUL DETAINER) FILED 12/6/2013 OF MOAB INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC FILED BY MOAB INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC
· Plaintiff’s Request For Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code 452(b), (d), (h).
· Plaintiff's 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] [declaration of Laura Ginger] and the defendant’s continuing possession pursuant to the declarations of Laura Ginger and Abraham Frag. The burden then shifts to Defendant under CCP §437c(p)(1) to establish a triable issue of material fact. Defendant has not met that burden. Defendant has not filed any opposition to the motion.
· Plaintiff is awarded a judgment for possession only.
· Moving party shall submit an order per CRC 3.1312 and submit it directly to the court for signature.