November 23, 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 JONATHAN E. KARESH

Department 20

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 8C

 

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

 

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

 you must call (650) 261-5019 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

LineS: 1 & 2

16-CIV-00915     KATHERINE L. GALLO-PODESTA, et al. vs. MIKE ASSAF

 

 

KATHERINE L. GALLO-PODESTA             Pro/PER

MICHAEL "MIKE" ASSAF                   MICHAEL A. FARBSTEIN

 

 

1. KATHERINE AND JOHN PODESTA’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.

 

Plaintiffs have already responded to a large quantity of discovery requests. But the number of requests is not the sole basis for a protective order. “Oppression” means the ultimate effect of the burden of responding to the discovery is “incommensurate with the result sought.” (West Pico Furniture Co. V. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.)  A protective order is warranted when “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive” or “The selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc., sect. 2019.030, subd. (a)(2).) 

 

The motion does not set forth facts or law demonstrating that the latest round of discovery is incommensurate with the result sought, unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or the method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive in the context of the amount at issue. Plaintiffs cite the number of previous responses, number of pages of discovery responses given, and number pages of paper produced. Those numbers alone do not explain why the present discovery is unwarranted. The Court declines the task of determining which of the pending discovery requests have already been asked and answered.

 

The special interrogatories in Set 2 and the document requests in Set 2 are not unduly numerous. The special interrogatories in Set 3 to each Plaintiff are numerous. In substance, however, approximately 40 are directed to Katherine Gallo-Podesta, and 33 are directed to John Podesta, since three interrogatories cover each topic (i.e., facts, witnesses, documents). 

 

Further, nearly all of the Set 3 interrogatories to Katherine Gallo-Podesta seek facts behind alleged misrepresentations, causes of action, and other allegations in the complaint. These interrogatories serve a purpose similar to Judicial Council Form Interrogatory 15.1, which requires a Defendant to identify every denial of material allegation and identify witnesses and documents. The burden of answering the pending interrogatories is not dissimilar to the burden of Defendant’s responding to Form Interrogatory 15.1.

 

Therefore, the Court orders:

 

1.   The motion for protective order is DENIED.

 

2.   For any special interrogatory or document request that Plaintiffs contend is duplicative of a previous request, then Plaintiff may respond by (a) identifying the set and number of the previous request, (b) quoting verbatim (not merely cite) the previous request, and (3) indicating that Plaintiff refers to and incorporates his/her previous response to the present discovery request. This manner of responding pertains only to the discovery that is subject of this motion, and no other discovery in this action. Defendant reserves the right to move for an order compelling a further response.

 

3.   The request that Defendant conduct depositions before Plaintiffs respond to the pending discovery is DENIED.

 

4.   The deadline for Plaintiffs’ responses and production of documents, if any, shall be determined as though all pending discovery were served personally on November 15, 2017.

 

5.   Requests for sanctions 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.

 

 

2. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO JOHN PODESTA’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET #2 AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion is GRANTED AS TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE CONCERNING THE DENIALS. The interrogatory requires that Defendant “Identify each denial of a material allegation” and provide facts, identification of witnesses, and identification of documents supporting each denial. Defendant’s response sets forth extensive facts, witnesses, and documents, but it does not identify which denial of material allegations that he intends to apply these facts to. Defendant is ordered to supplement his responses to “identify each denial of a material allegation.” Defendant must also indicate which facts, witnesses, and documents correlate with each denial. 

 

The motion is DENIED AS TO RESPONSES CONCERNING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.  A motion to compel further responses is proper when “An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. sect. 2030.300, subd. (a)(1).) The motion does not argue that the response is evasive or incomplete, but only the wrong “format.” (See Moving P&A at 3:18-19.)

 

Defendant states that a full response would consist of taking his responses concerning the first and second affirmative defenses and duplicating them for the remaining 25 defenses. (See Opposition at p.3.) The Opposition implies that if this motion were granted, Defendant would simply copy and paste for the remaining defenses. Whether that would be a sufficient response is not an issue raised by this motion.

 

Therefore, the Court orders:

 

1.   Defendant’s responses concerning the 3rd through 8th, 10th through 12th, 14th through 21st, 25th, and 27th affirmative defenses are deemed to include, by reference, the entirety of Defendant’s responses concerning the first and second affirmative defenses as though fully set forth as to each of those defenses.

 

2.   Defendant admits that, as of November 15, 2017, he has no facts, witnesses, or documents to support the alleged 9th, 13th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 26th affirmative defenses.

 

3.   Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.

 

4.   Defendant Assaf shall serve a supplemental response identifying each denial of a material allegation in the complaint and setting forth which facts, witnesses, and documents support each denial. The supplemental response shall be served no later than December 8, 2017, Any extension of time shall be in writing.

 

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

Line: 3

16-CIV-01769     GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE, INC. vs. JAY GALLUZZO

 

 

GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE, INC.               JONATHAN A. PATCHEN

JAY GALLUZZO                           DAVID C. LEE

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion of Plaintiff Guidewire Software, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. 

 

Defendant Jay Galluzzo (“Defendant”) has not established any prejudice if leave to amend is granted.  (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [If the motion to amend is timely made and granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action].)  The court’s discretion is usually exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.)

 

Joinder of Cannon as a defendant also appears permissible.  (See C.C.P. § 379.)

 

The court does not reach Defendant’s argument as to whether Plaintiff’s claims for conversion and unfair competition are preempted if the First Amended Complaint is filed.  After leave to amend is granted, the opposing party will have the opportunity to attack the validity of the amended pleading.  (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) 

 

To the extent Defendant seeks a trial continuance, Defendant must bring an ex parte application or motion before the Presiding Judge.

 

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

Line: 4

16-CIV-02469     TELIGENZ TECH SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. vs. TORA

                   HOLDINGS, INC., et al.

 

 

TELIGENZ TECH SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.       TERANCE D. ORME

TORA HOLDINGS, INC.                    JEREMY SUGERMAN

 

 

DEFENDANT’S HEARING ON DEMURRER TO REVISED FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant TORA HOLDINGS, INC.’s Demurrer to Fourth Amended Complaint is OVERRULED as to the First cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets.  The Court finds that this cause of action is sufficiently stated.  Plaintiff shall have 20 days from service of the notice of entry of order to answer the complaint.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 



9:00

Line: 5

16-CIV-02941     CHERIF MEDAWAR, et al. vs. NYLE MAMEESH, et al.

 

 

CHERIF MEDAWAR                         NIALL P. MCCARTHY

NYLE MAMEESH                           MICHAEL D. LIBERTY

 

 

CHERIF MEDAWAR, MIGSIF 2, LLC AND ORIGINAL RESOURCES, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS TESTIMONY OF RAVI ANAND

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Cherif Medawar et al.’s Motion to Compel a further deposition of Defendant and Cross-Complainant Ravi Anand is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. 

 

As to Mr. Anand’s and Mr. Mameesh’s communications that involved their attorneys, the motion is DENIED.  The communications occurred after the case was filed (Anand Tr. at 25), after Defendants signed a Joint Defense and Common Interest Doctrine Agreement (JDA).  Heath Decl. at 3.  Given the JDA, their communications in the presence of their attorneys are most likely attorney-client privileged.  Plaintiff has not demonstrated a waiver.  OXY California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 890 (“While involvement of an unnecessary third person in attorney-client communications destroys confidentiality, involvement of third persons to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary to further the purpose of the legal consultation preserves confidentiality of communication.”).  The existence of the signed JDA weighs against Plaintiff’s waiver argument.  Id.  The Court finds it unnecessary to review the JDA in camera to make this determination.  Defendants had a reasonable expectation that information disclosed between them and their counsel would remain confidential, and that the other Defendant (and party to the JDA) would preserve the confidentiality of the information.  Id.  Both appear to have had a common interest in securing legal advice related to the same matter, and conversations with their attorneys most likely were made to advance their shared interest in securing legal advice on that common matter.  Id. 

 

As to Anand’s and Mameesh’s communications outside the presence (or involvement) of attorneys, the motion is GRANTED.  Signing a JDA does not, in itself, render communications between two defendants privileged.  Id. at 890 (“the party seeking to invoke the [common interest] doctrine must first establish that the communicated information would otherwise be protected from disclosure by a claim of privilege.”).  Id.  Here, the Court has no information from which it can determine whether communication(s) between Anand and Mameesh outside the presence of their attorney(s) involved disclosure of attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or other privileged material.  If their communications involved disclosure of privileged information, then the communication(s) presumably would be protected if Defendants had a reasonable expectation the communication(s) would be maintained in confidence, and the disclosure was “reasonably necessary to further the purpose of the legal consultation.”  Id.  Only Mr. Anand would know whether his communications with Mr. Mameesh involved disclosure of privileged material.  

 

The parties are advised to further meet and confer to decide whether, under the circumstances, reconvening the deposition makes sense.  If they continue the deposition, it should not exceed two additional hours.  Defense counsel may assert objections and/or an admonition to Mr. Anand not to disclose privileged material.  But a blanket instruction that he not disclose any communications(s) he had with Mameesh merely because they signed a JDA, without considering whether their communications in fact disclosed privileged information/material, is improper. 

 

Although it does not change the result, Defendant Mameesh’s request to join in Anand’s Opposition is DENIED.  Mr. Mameesh was timely served with the moving papers.  Any response/opposition should have been served by the Opposition deadline (Nov. 1), so as to give Plaintiff sufficient time to respond.  Mameesh served his joinder papers on Nov. 3, two days after the Opposition deadline, and by regular mail.  See Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1005(b) (requiring service of opposition papers by overnight delivery). 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 

 



9:00

Line: 6

16-CIV-02957     246 ATHERTON AVENUE LLC vs. TRAIS FLUORS LLC, et al.

 

 

246 ATHERTON AVENUE LLC                H. MICHAEL CLYDE

TRAIS FLOURS LLC                       LAWRENCE E. BUTLER

 

 

TRAIS FLUORS LLC’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OF MOHAMMAD MORTAZAVI’S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICATION

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Per stipulation and order, the motion is continued to December 1, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department. 

 

 

 



9:00

Line: 7

17-CIV-00778     JOY RAMOS vs. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.

 

 

JOY RAMOS                              JOHN E. STRINGER

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC              ALISON V. LIPPA

 

 

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

On the Court’s own motion, the motion is continued to December 15, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.

 



9:00

Line: 8

17-CIV-03501     NAPEAN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, et al. vs. SELECT

                   PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC., et al.

 

 

NAPEAN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC              CARLOS A. ALVAREZ

GEORGE PLAVJIAN                        PRO/PER  

 

 

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING AND BANK OF AMERICA’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants U.S. BANK, N.A. and SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.  Defendants have not shown good cause for striking or, in the alternative, staying all of the discovery propounded by Plaintiffs to date in this case.  Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.420, 2030.090, 2031.060, and 2033.080.

 

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions for having to oppose this motion is GRANTED in the amount of $2,880.00.  Defendants are ordered to pay these sanctions no later than December 15, 2017.    

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 



9:00

Line: 9

17-CIV-03784     HECTOR R. PRADO vs. JOSE PRADO, et al.

 

 

HECTOR R. PRADO                        Michelle Leu Zaccone

ANA PRADO                              JENNIFER GARDELLA

 

 

JOSE AND ANA PRADO’S HEARING ON DEMURRER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The demurrer is MOOT and is ordered off-calendar because the First Amended Complaint was filed on October 30, 2017

 



9:00

Line: 10

17-CIV-03904     JENNIFER KURZ vs. CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY

                   EXCHANGE, et al.

 

 

JENNIFER KURZ                          J EDWARD KERLEY

CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE  JACLYN D. LEVASH

 

 

CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE’S HEARING ON DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The general demurrer is overruled.  The complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish standing with respect to the claims asserted on behalf of Caeden Kurz.  Specifically, it alleges that he was an insured under the policy, that he made three claims under the policy, that defendant failed or delayed providing policy benefits and that he has suffered consequential damages as a result of defendant’s conduct.  For purposes of ruling on the demurrer the facts alleged must be accepted as true. 

 

The special demurrer for uncertainty is also overruled.  The complaint alleges facts sufficient to apprise defendant of the claims against it.  Any doubt as to the specific policy provisions or benefits at issue may be clarified through discovery.

 

Defendant shall answer the complaint within 20 days of service of the notice of entry of order.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 



9:00

Line: 11

CIV511997     FIREMAN'S FUND VS. DOMINIQUE BLACK

 

 

FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY        JEREMY SUGERMAN

DOMINIQUE BLACK                        PAUL J. SMOOT

 

 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion is continued to Friday, November 17, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Master Calendar Department for an in camera evidentiary hearing as to the reasons for counsel’s requesting to be relieved in this case.

 

 



9:00

Line: 12

CIV535206     SUPERSHUTTLE, ET AL. VS. SERGUI VULPE, ET AL.

 

 

SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONL, INC.         STEVEN C. RICE

SERGIU VULPE                           LAWRENCE D. MURRAY

 

 

SERGIU VULPE’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD IN THIS MATTER AND THEREAFTER DISMISS THE PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Per order dated November 13, 2017, the motion is continued to December 11, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.



9:01

Line: 13

17-CIV-03501     NAPEAN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, et al. vs. SELECT

                   PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC., et al.

 

 

NAPEAN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC              CARLOS A. ALVAREZ

GEORGE PLAVJIAN                        PRO/PER  

 

 

mOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiffs NAPEAN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC; and FREDERIC SHIH-HSING YANG and JIHONG ANNA YANG, as Co-Trustees of the YANG FAMILY TRUST’s Motion to Compel Depositions is GRANTED.  Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.210(b); Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a). 

 

Defendants are ordered to produce the Person Most Knowledgeable for Defendant U.S. BANK, N.A.; the Person Most Knowledgeable for Defendant SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; and Michelle Simon for deposition no later than December 15, 2017.  These witnesses are further ordered to produce documents responsive to the requests set forth in their respective Notices of Deposition no later than December 15, 2017. 

 

To the extent that Defendants assert that a protective order is necessary, the parties are ordered to meet and confer, and Defendants’ counsel is to submit a stipulated protective order to the Court for signature no later than November 22, 2017.  To the extent that Defendants withhold responsive documents on the grounds of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product, Defendants are ordered to produce a privilege log no later than December 15, 2017.

 

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $3,360.00.  Defendants are ordered to pay these sanctions no later than December 15, 2017.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 


 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County