January 17, 2017
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 RICHARD H. DuBOIS

Department 16

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 7A

 

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

 

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-CIV-01563     DARRELL ESPINOZA vs.  PRIME COMMUNICATIONS OF

                    CALIFORNIA, LLC, et al.

 

ESPINOZA, DARRELL                     NORDREHAUG, KYLE R

PRIME COMMUINICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA       

 

 

petition to compel arbitration and Stay Action

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a “First-Amended Class Action Complaint” on Jan. 5, 2017, and on Jan. 6, 2017, filed a belated Opposition to Defendant Prime Communications of California, LLC’s Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action, stating Plaintiff did not receive actual notice of the Petition until Jan. 5, 2017.  Based on these representations, the Court continues the hearing date on Defendant’s Petition to Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2017 at 9 a.m. in the Law & Motion Department.  Defendant may file a response to Plaintiff’s Opposition no later than Jan. 30, 2017. 



9:00

Line: 2

CIV518553     MWKS PERRY STREET VS. PERRY STREET LLC ETAL

 

 

MWKS PERRY STREET LLC                 CRAIG J. BASSETT

PERRY STREET LLC                      SHEILA GROPPER NELSON

 

 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEDINGS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion as to the first cause of action (breach of contract) is DENIED. A Bankruptcy Trustee’s rejecting an executory contract merely eliminates the remedy of specific performance as to the bankruptcy debtor. Moving parties Buyer Defendants offer no authority holding that specific performance is no longer available against persons other than the bankruptcy debtors. Further, Defendant’s argument does not dispose of the entire breach of contract claim, which alleges damages as an alternative remedy.

 

That Buyer Defendants were not parties to the original agreement between Perry Street LLC and Plaintiff’s assignors does not preclude a contract claim against them. The Court ruled on this issue at Defendants’ January 2014 demurrer. The FAC alleges an agency relationship and conspiracy among all Defendants. Although a contract is not specifically enforceable against “a purchaser…in good faith and for value” (Civ. Code Sect. 3395), the FAC sufficiently alleges that Defendants are not bona fide purchasers.

 

The motion as to the second cause of action (interference with contract) is DENIED. The Trustee’s rejection of the agreement merely disposed of the claim against Defendant Perry Street; it did not render the contract nonexistent. Regardless, Plaintiff is not required to prove that a valid contract presently exists. The element of the cause of action is that a contract existed at the time the act of interference occurred. 

 

The motion as to the third cause of action (fraudulent transfer) is GRANTED. Plaintiff concedes that the Bankruptcy Trustee sold the fraudulent transfer claim to Buyer Defendants at an auction in March 2016.  (See Opposition at 9:8-11.) Plaintiff offers no argument that its claim is still viable. Finally, the parties informed the court that they had resolved this Cause of Action between themselves.

 

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. 

 

 



9:00

Line: 3

CIV535869     PEARL DE CASTRO VS. LERIDA F. LIPUMANO-PICAZO

 

 

PEARL DE CASTRO                       MARK C. WATSON

LERIDA F. LIPUMANO-PICAZO             Pro/PER

 

 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ENTER JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff Pearl De Castro’s unopposed Motion to Enforce the Settlement is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §664.6. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $80,000.00.

 

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.

 


 

 

 

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 susan irene etezadi

Department 18

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2L

 

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

 

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

 you must call (650) 261-5118 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-02122     DORIS SANGALLI vs. NICHOLAS VON TOBEL, et al.

 

 

DORIS SANGALLI                        MICHA STAR LIBERTY

NICHOLAS VON TOBEL                    Richard baum

 

 

MOTION FOR PREFERENCE ON TRIAL SETTING

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preference on Trial Setting pursuant Civil Code of Procedure section 36 is GRANTED. The trial date shall be set no later than 120 days from the date the motion is granted. The court has no discretion to delay the trial setting. Therefore, the court sets this matter for trial on May 1, 2017. The last day this matter can be set for trial is May 11, 2017.

 



9:00

Line: 2

CIV538738     BEATA COGAN, ET AL. VS. SETON MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.

 

 

BEATA COGAN                           Pro/PER

SETON MEDICAL CENTER                  MARC G. COWDEN

 

 

Motion to Continue Trial Date

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Pursuant to stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the trial currently set for September 11, 2017 is hereby VACATED and continued to September 25, 2017. The Mandatory Settlement Conference set for August 29, 2017, remains on calendar. All pretrial deadlines will be based upon the new trial date.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County