October 21, 2014
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 2L

 

OCTOBER 15, 2014

 

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 486433       ELVIRA ALVAREZ VS. JULIE ABERIA, ET AL.

 

 

ELVIRA ALVAREZ                        WILLIAM E. GILG

JULIE ABERIA

 

 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER EXTINGUISHING AND/OR REDUCING THE JUDGMENT BY LUKE MACK

 

 

·         Continued to November 4, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. by stipulation of the parties.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

2

CIV 488367       JOHN F. DIETZ VS. RICHARD MORRISON

 

 

JOHN F. DIETZ                         PRO/PER

RICHARD MORRISON                      PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO BRING TO TRIAL BY RICHARD MORRISON

 

 

·         Continued to October 24, 2014 at 9:00 A.M. in the Law and Motion department.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

3

CIV 519064       JACKIEJO LOPEZ, ET AL. VS. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

                   DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

 

 

JACKIEJO LOPEZ                        GREGORY S. WALSTON

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPT.      RYAN KUJAWSKI

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, MARTY VAN DUYN, JASON ROSENBERG, NORMA FRAGOSO, SUSAN KENNEDY, KEVIN MULLIN, OFFICER MAZI SADIKI, SERGEANT DANIEL GIL, OFFICER JASON PFARR, OFFICER JOSHUA CABILLO, JONI LEE AND CHIEF MICHAEL MASSONI

 

 

·         The motion is DENIED on several grounds.  First, it was not served on Plaintiff Edward Miller in compliance with CCP § 1005, which extends the notice period by ten (10) days when, as in this case, the service address is outside the state of California. 

 

·         Second, the motion is untimely to the extent Defendants seek an order compelling further discovery responses.  Unless notice of a motion to compel further responses is given within forty-five (45) days of service of the verified response or any specific later date to which the parties have agreed to in writing, the party seeking the discovery waives the right to compel a further response.   [CCP §§ 2030.300(c) and 2031.310(c).]  The declaration of Ryan Kujawski states that Plaintiffs served responses on March 21, 2014.  Notice of the instant motion was served on September 15, 2014, more than forty-five (45) days later.  While Defendants argue there was a written agreement extending the deadline for this motion, the evidence does not support this conclusion.  At best, the correspondence on which Defendants rely purports to confirm an oral agreement between the parties.  Defendants cite no authority indicating this constitutes an agreement in writing within the meaning of CCP §§ 2030.300(c) and 2031.310(c). 

 

·         Third, Defendants have not established that terminating sanctions are appropriate.  CCP § 2023.030 provides that the Court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method.  CCP § 2030.290(c), on which Defendants rely, states that the Court may impose a terminating sanction when a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to interrogatories.  CCP § 2031.300(c) contains a similar provision regarding inspection demands.  The defendants concede that Plaintiffs have provided responses.  To the extent Defendants deem them to be insufficient, their remedy was to file a timely motion to compel further response.

 

·         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

4

CIV 524878       GEORGIE STEVENS vs. DIANE SCOTT SILVER-DAVIS, et aL.

 

 

GEORGIE STEVENS                       LINDA MALLETTE

DIANE SCOTT SILVER-DAVIS              CHARLES J. SMITH

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND BY GEORGIE STEVENS

 

 

·         Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED.  A Statement of Non-Opposition was filed on October 1, 2014.  Plaintiff shall file her Second Amended Complaint consistent with her proposed Second Amended Complaint no later than October 30, 2014.

 

·         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

5

CIV 525257       MELISSA CORONADO VS. DELTA AIRLINES, ET AL.

 

 

MELISSA CORONADO                      CHRISTINE L. GARCIA

DELTA AIRLINES                        RICHARD G. GROTCH

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DELTA AIR LINES, INC. AND KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ, N.V.

 

 

·         The Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, brought by  Defendants DELTA AIR LINES, INC. (“Delta”) and KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ, N.V. (“KLM”), is GRANTED IN PART as to Items 3 and 4 of the Prayer for Relief.  These items impermissibly seek exemplary damages and emotional distress damages, both of which were previously stricken by the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint. 

 

·         Defendants’ Motion to Strike the entire Second Amended Complaint is DENIED.  While the Court finds that Plaintiff improperly filed her Second Amended Complaint past the deadline following the sustaining of Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration of fault pursuant to C.C.P. § 473.

 

·         Moving parties are 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 526546       ROSE BLUM VS. SEQUOIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.

 

 

ROSE BLUM                             DANIEL L. FEDER

SEQUOIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.      SUSAN ZEME

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of BLUM BY SEQUOIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.

 

 

·         Off calendar by stipulation of the parties.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

7

CIV 527376       BLAIR N. GEORGAKAS VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

 

 

BLAIR N. GEORGAKAS                    M. NICHOLAS NITA

FORD MOTOR COMPANY                    GARY T. LAFAYETTE

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY BLAIR N. GEORGAKAS

 

           

·         The motion was timely filed on September 22, 2014.  Service on September 19, 2014 was timely.  (C.C.P. § 1005.)

 

·         The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Production of Documents is GRANTED IN PART.  The subject matter of this action is the alleged breach of warranty concerning Plaintiff’s vehicle.  The 1st and 2nd Causes of Action specifically invoke the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, which imposes obligations of repair, refund and repurchase/replacement under various circumstances.  Therefore, Defendant’s policies and procedures for handling and addressing consumer inquiries and complaints regarding repair, requests for refunds and requests for repurchase/replacement are relevant to the subject matter and proper subject of discovery.  (C.C.P. § 2017.010.) 

 

·         In addition, the Complaint expressly alleges that Plaintiff requested that Defendant replace her vehicle.  (Complaint ¶¶ 21 and 32.)  Therefore, the request is not merely relevant to the subject matter, but also to the issues.  Defendant’s attempt to disprove the allegation is beyond the scope of a discovery motion, and the cited evidence is neither authenticated, admissible nor dispositive of a disputed fact.  (Declaration of Santos, Exhibit B, Bates 000048, 000050.)

 

·         Defendant offers no evidence to support its contention that complying with the requests is unduly burdensome or that the documents contain proprietary, confidential or trade secret information.

 

·         The Court sustains Defendant’s objection to the document requests as to overbroad time period.  Defendant’s further responses shall be limited to the period from January 1, 2011 to September 30, 2014.

 

·         The motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory 15.1.  Defendant’s response is evasive in that it contains no discernible facts, but asserts only conclusions, beliefs and further denials.  The response identifies no persons other than “representatives.”  The response identifies two documents, but otherwise states only that the supporting documents “include those documents produced to Plaintiff.”  In addition, the response fails to identify what portions of its response apply to which of its thirteen (13) affirmative defenses.  An evasive response to Interrogatory 15.1 is a misuse of discovery.  (See, e.g., Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Adm'rs, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093.)

 

·         Defendant shall respond further to Interrogatory 15.1 by answering the subparts as worded.  If Defendant lacks responsive information to any part of the interrogatory, Defendant shall state facts setting forth the efforts it took to obtain the information and why the information is unavailable.  Defendant shall not merely copy and paste the same responsive answer from one affirmative defense to another unless all responsive information applies to the specific affirmative defense.

 

·         Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

 

·         Defendant shall serve verified further responses to Request for Production Document Categories 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 and Form Interrogatory 15.1 no later than November 5, 2014 or fourteen (14) calendar days after service of Notice of Entry of Order granting this motion, whichever is later.   

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court.  Thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the above ruling, 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

8

CIV 527743       HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS. GAMECRAFT,

                   LLC, ET AL.

 

 

HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.       DAVID SIMANTOB

GAME CRAFT, LLC

 

 

MOTION PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 664.6 TO ENFORCE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY GAME CRAFT, LLC D/B/A AIMPOINT TECHONOLOGIES AND SWEENEY HOLDINGS, LLC

 

 

·         The motion brought by Defendants GAME CRAFT, LLC D/B/A AIMPOINT TECHNOLOGIES and SWEENEY HOLDINGS, LLC pursuant to C.C.P. § 664.6 to Enforce the Memorandum of Understanding is DENIED without prejudice. CCP § 664.6 provides:  “the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”  For purposes of this summary procedure, Defendants did not provide sufficient evidence of the parties’ mutual assent to be bound by the Memorandum of Understanding.  Additionally, the “formal agreement” contains material terms not contemplated or outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding.  Thus, Defendants must supplement their moving papers with further extrinsic evidence that substantiates their proposition that the Memorandum of Understanding was in fact a “settlement” for purposes of CCP § 664.6.

 

·         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 529460       MICHELE MORECI, ET AL. VS. LOUIS CIAPPONI, ET AL.

 

 

MICHELE MORECI                        TYSON REDENBARGER

LOUIS CIAPPONI                        MICHAEL K. CASSATA

 

 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL DEMURRERS TO FIRst Amended COMPLAINT of MORECI BY LOUIS CIAPPONI, LOUIS S. CIAPPONI AND ANTOINETTE A. CIAPPONI AS TRUSTEES OF THE CIAPPONI REVOCABLE TRUST, ANTHONY C. LERTORA AND JANET LERTORA AS TRUSTEES OF THE LERTORA FAMILY TRUST, ANTHONY C. LERTORA AS TRUSTEE OF THE JAMES D. LEE-LERTORA TRUST AND ELIZABETH B. PINELLI AS TRUSTEE OF THE PINELLI SURVIVOR’S TRUST

 

 

·         Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ 6th Cause of Action for Retaliatory Eviction is SUSTAINED with leave to amend pursuant to CCP § 430.10(e).  Plaintiffs failed to state all the elements required for a retaliatory eviction cause of action under Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.5.  Specifically, Plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing the alleged retaliation took place within 180 days after Plaintiffs made a complaint to Defendants. 

 

·         Defendants’ Demurrer to all other causes of action is OVERRULED.  The statute of limitations argument is not persuasive because it does not appear from the face of the Complaint that the action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  [Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. Of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42].  It is not enough that the Complaint might be time barred.  [Id.]  Second, Defendants’ arguments regarding the special and punitive damages are also not persuasive at this early stage of the proceedings.  These arguments are more properly brought as a motion to strike and are not proper grounds for a demurrer.  [See Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1561-62; see also Weil & Brown, Civil Proc. Before Trial, ¶¶ 7:42.1, 7:182-187.]  Third, Plaintiffs have stated sufficient facts to constitute causes of action for all of their claims, and the Complaint is not sufficiently uncertain to warrant sustaining a demurrer.  CCP § 430.10(e)-(f).

 

·         Plaintiffs shall file a First Amended Complaint, should they elect to do so, no later than October 30, 2014. 

 

·         Demurring parties are 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

CIV 529869       ALDO GHIOZZI, ET AL. VS. FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

 

 

ALDO GHIOZZI                          RONALD J. COOK

FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

 

 

PETITION TO COMPEL APPRAISAL BY ALDO GHIOZZI AND LOU ANN GHIOZZI

 

 

·         Continued to January 14, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. by stipulation of the parties.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

11

CIV 530374       VULCAN WARBIRDS INC. VS. THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, ET

                   AL.

 

 

VULCAN WARBIRDS INC.                  PHILIP L. GREGORY

THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION

 

 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BY VULCAN WARBIRDS, INC.

 

 

·         This matter is continued to October 23, 2014 at 2:00 P.M. in Department 28 on the Writs and Receivers Calendar.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

12

CLJ 490931       CACH, LLC VS. ANDY Y. CHEUNG

 

 

CACH, LLC                             DEBORAH S. HARVEGO

ANDY Y. CHEUNG                        HIEN D. DOAN

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; COMPELLING RESPONSES TO WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES; ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY CACH, LLC

 

 

·         This motion is moot in light of the fact that the entire action was dismissed on September 18, 2014.

 


 

 

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 JOHN L. GRANDSAERT

Department 11

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2D

 

OCTOBER 15, 2014

 

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

 you must call (650) 261-5111 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

1

CIV 518333       MATTHEW HAYDEN VS. JIMMY WANG, ET AL.

 

 

MATTHEW HAYDEN                        LAURENCE M. ROSEN

JIMMY WANG                            MARK P. FICKES

 

 

MOTION FOR COMPLEX DESIGNATION BY MATTHEW HAYDEN

 

 

·         Appear.  

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

2

CIV 521910       EMILY DINGLE VS. WEBB BUILDERS, INC., ET AL.

 

 

EMILY DINGLE                          GREGORY C. CATTERMOLE

WEBB BUILDERS, INC.                   TRUMAN PHAN-QUANG

 

 

MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE BY WEBB BUILDERS, INC. AND WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM

 

 

·         Motion to Continue the Trial Date is GRANTED.  The Jury Trial is continued to May 4, 2015 at 9:00 A.M. in Department PJ.  The Mandatory Settlement Conference is continued to April 17, 2015 at 9:30 A.M. in Department 7.  

 


 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County