April 25, 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, April 19, 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

LineS: 1 & 2

16-CIV-00242     FARIS FYZEE vs. ALEX PERES, et al.   

 

 

FARIS FYZEE                            Pro/PER

KAMELIYA VLADIMIROVA

                                      NICHOLAS J. BERNATE

 

1. Demurrer to plaintiff’s first amended complaint BY KAMELIYA VLADIMIROVA

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The hearing on Defendant Kameliya Vladimirova’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) and Special Motion to Strike (ANTI-SLAPP) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 is continued to Monday, May 8, 2017, at 9:00 A.M. in the Law & Motion department.

 

Plaintiff recently filed a Declaration seeking to “withdraw” the First, Third, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action in his FAC, all of which are at issue in both the Demurrer and the Motion to Strike.  A declaration is not the proper mechanism to dismiss claims.  Claims should be dismissed via a Request for Dismissal.  If Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the aforementioned claims, at least seven days prior to the May 8th hearing date, Plaintiff is ordered to file a Request for Dismissal with the court dismissing the First, Third, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action in the FAC.  The Court will then be able to review and rule on the outstanding motions.

 

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. SPECIAL Motion to strike pursuant to California code of civil procedure section 425.16 BY KAMELIYA VLADIMIROVA

Tentative ruling:

 

The hearing on Defendant Kameliya Vladimirova’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) and Special Motion to Strike (ANTI-SLAPP) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 is continued to Monday, May 8, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in the Law & Motion department.

 

Plaintiff recently filed a Declaration seeking to “withdraw” the First, Third, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action in his FAC, all of which are at issue in both the Demurrer and the Motion to Strike.  A declaration is not the proper mechanism to dismiss claims.  Claims should be dismissed via a Request for Dismissal.  If Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the aforementioned claims, at least seven days prior to the May 8th hearing date, Plaintiff is ordered to file a Request for Dismissal with the court dismissing the First, Third, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action in the FAC.  The Court will then be able to review and rule on the outstanding motions.

 

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

LineS: 3 - 5

16-CIV-00513     LEISURE FUN GROUP, INC. vs.  XICEPTA SCIENCES, INC.,   

                   et al.             

 

 

LEISURE FUN GROUP, INC.                JONATHAN J. BELAGA

XICEPTA SCIENCES, INC.                 STACY Y. NORTH

 

 

3. motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant biologic international, inc. BY STACY Y. NORTH

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The firm of Pierce & Shearer, LLP’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record is GRANTED. 

           

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, Pierce & Shearer, LLP is directed to prepare, circulate and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 

 

4. motion to be reliEved as counsel for defendant xicepta global inc. BY STACY Y. NORTH

Tentative ruling:

 

The firm of Pierce & Shearer, LLP’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record is GRANTED. 

           

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, Pierce & Shearer, LLP is directed to prepare, circulate and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 

 

5. motion to be reliEved as counsel for defendant xicepta sciences, inc. BY STACY Y. NORTH

Tentative ruling:

 

The firm of Pierce & Shearer, LLP’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record is GRANTED. 

           

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, Pierce & Shearer, LLP is directed to prepare, circulate and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 


9:00

Line: 6

16-CIV-02485     SWC INC. vs. ELITE PROMO INC., et al.

 

 

SWC INC.                               JOHN F. FRIEDEMANN

Elite promo inc.                       Robert w. payne

 

 

demurrer BY ELITE PROMO INC.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is dropped from calendar as the case has been settled.

 


9:00

Line: 7

17-CIV-01166     IN RE: PETITION OF: STRUCTURED ASSET FUNDING, LLC   

 

 

STRUCTURED ASSET FUNDING, LLC.          LEA I. HOFFMAN

ARIEL Hunt                            

 

 

Petition FOR APPROVAL OF transfer OF structured settlement PAYMENT RIGHTS BY STRUCTURED ASSET FUNDING, LLC. ON BEHALF OF ARIEL HUNT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The underlying settlement agreement states at Paragraph 3.0 that the periodic payments cannot be accelerated by the payee nor shall the payee have the power to sell, mortgage, encumber or anticipate the payments by assignment or otherwise.

 

Petitioner shall appear (in person or by CourtCall) to explain why the proposed transfer is not prohibited by Paragraph 3.0 of the underlying settlement agreement. 

 


9:00

Line: 8

CIV511997     FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY VS. DOMINIQUE BLACK   

 

 

FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY        JEREMY SUGERMAN

DOMINIQUE BLACK                        PAUL J. SMOOT

 

 

Motion for order GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT BY DOMINIQUE BLACK

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Cross-Complainant DOMINIQUE BLACK’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint is DENIED.

 

Generally speaking, a trial court “has discretion to allow amendment of any pleading at any stage of the proceedings” and should demonstrate “liberality” in doing so.  Ramos v. City of Santa Clara (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 93, 95.  However, denial of a motion for leave to file an amended pleading is appropriate “if a party seeking amendment has been dilatory and/or the delay has prejudiced or will prejudice the opposing party.”  M&F Fishing, Inc. v. Sea-Pac Ins. Managers, Inc. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1534.  In Fisher v. Larsen (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 627, 649, the Court held that leave to amend was properly denied where the plaintiff knew for over five months that the claims asserted had not been properly pleaded, and the plaintiff took no action to amend until after summary judgment was granted against it.  Denial of leave to amend is also proper “where the proposed amendment interjects a new issue…which may require further investigation or discovery procedures.”  Nelson v. Specialty Records, Inc. (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 126, 139. 

 

Here, Cross-Complainant’s moving papers assert that the “facts” giving rise to his proposed new causes of action became known to him in March and September of 2016.  No explanation is provided whatsoever as to why Cross-Complainant waited six months until March 23, 2017 to file the instant Motion.  Cross-Defendant FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY’s Motion for Summary Judgment was heard on November 3, 2016, and trial is less than a month away.  Moreover, Cross-Complainant has indicated since as early as December 2015, and made representations to the Court in early 2016 regarding his intent to seek leave to file an amended Cross-Complaint, and yet has waited for well over a year before actually doing so.  His dilatory conduct, combined with the real prejudice to Cross-Defendant FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, warrants a denial of the instant Motion.

 

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

LineS: 9 & 10

CIV535828     NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. VS. 

                UNIVERSITY HEALThcare ALLIANCE

 

 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.   JOHN D. FREED

UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE ALLIANCE          DANIEL S. KUBASAK

 

 

9. motion to compel further discovery responses from plaintiff BY UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE ALLIANCE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

At the request of both parties, the Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Plaintiff is continued to May 17, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., in the Law and Motion department. 

 

 

10. Motion to compel reGARDING plaintiff’s privilege log BY UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE ALLIANCE

Tentative ruling:

 

At the request of both parties, the Motion to Compel Regarding Plaintiff’s Privilege Log is continued to May 17, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., in the Law and Motion department. 

 


9:00

Line: 11

CLJ535211     IN RE: $595.00, ET AL.   

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA   CRYSTAL T. CHAU

Jose JIMENEZ balbino                   pro/per

 

 

Motion for summary judgment BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The People’s unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.  Petitioner has met its burden to show there is no defense to this action.  CCP §437c(p)(1).  The evidence establishes each of the elements required to entitle Petitioner to a forfeiture of the seized property. 

 

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 and judgment reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order and judgment are to be submitted directly to Judge Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 


9:01

LineS: 12 - 14

CLJ530172     PITCAIRN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. ELIZABETH MARIE

                BARNSON KARNAZES

 

 

PITCAIRN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION             KEVIN D. FREDERICK

ELIZABETH MARIE BARNSON KARNAZES             Pro/PER

 

 

12. Motion for order that cross-defendants’ requests for admissions be deeemed admitted AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY PITCAIRN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, MULQUEENEY AND ASSOCIATES AND DAN JAMES

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

On the Motion of Cross-Defendants Pitcairn Homeowners Association, Dan James and Mulqueeney and Associates (“Cross-Defendants”) for Order that their Requests for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Elizabeth Karnazes, Cross-Complainant has provided full verified answers, without objections, to this discovery and the matter is, therefore, dropped from calendar. 

 

 

13. motion for ISSUE and monetary sanctionS for disobedience of discovery order re: interrogatory responseS BY PITCAIRN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Tentative ruling:

 

On the Motion of Cross-Defendant Pitcairn Homeowners Association (“Cross-Defendant”) for Issue Sanctions for Disobedience of Discovery Order Re: Interrogatory Responses against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Elizabeth Karnazes, Cross-Complainant has provided full verified answers, without objections, to this discovery and the matter is, therefore, dropped from calendar

 

 

14. Motion for EVIDENTIARY and monetary sanctionS for disobedience of discovery order re: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY PITCAIRN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, DAN JAMES AND MULQUEENEY AND ASSOCIATES

Tentative ruling:

 

On the Motion of Cross-Defendant Pitcairn Homeowners Association for Evidentiary Sanctions for Disobedience of Discovery Order Re: Requests for Production of Documents, Cross-Complainant has provided full verified answers, without objections, to this discovery and the motion is, therefore, dropped from calendar.

 


 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:23 PM

 

 

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County