May 2, 2016
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 susan irene etezadi

Department 18

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2M

 

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

 

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

1

CIV 527347       KEALAONAPUA O'SULLIVAN LUM VS. MIDPEN HOUSING, ET AL.

 

 

KEALAONAPUA O'SULLIVAN LUM            CHARLES J. SMITH

MIDPEN HOUSING CORPORATION            DAVID M. MCLAUGHLIN

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF JOSEPH PRINCE ALFARA'S COMPLAINT BY MIDPEN HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL.

 

Defendants MidPen Housing Corporation, MidPen Property Management Corporation and MidPen Resident Services Corporation’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff Joseph Prince Alfafara’s First Amended Complaint is DENIED. 

 

The motion to strike allegations regarding punitive damages in relation to the first causes of action is wholly unsupported by any authority or argument. The first cause of action alleges facts which, if proven, could support a finding that Defendants acted at least with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, or possibly with actual malice and oppression.

 

The motion to strike paragraphs ¶¶ 18, 20, 22, 23, 29, 34 and 37 as irrelevant is DENIED. Although these paragraphs describe behavior of third parties, the facts are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims found in the First Amended Complaint. 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY MIDPEN HOUSING

CORPORATION, ET AL.

 

Pursuant to stipulation of the parties and order of the court dated April 14, 2016, defendants motion for summary adjudication is continued to June 7, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 534391       JOSE HENRIQUEZ VS. SOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL

 

 

JOSE HENRIQUEZ                           RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN

SOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL           JESSE F. RUIZ

 

 

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT WITNESSES’

 

Defendant Society of St. Vincent de Paul’s motion for a protective order is granted pursuant to CCP §2034.250(b)(6). The plaintiff shall designate one expert witness to testify on the topic of safety of the site and causation of the accident. Plaintiff is further required to pay defendants sanctions in the amount of $250 pursuant to CCP §2034.250(d).

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 534749       ANDREW KIM VS. CITY OF BELMONT, ET AL.

 

 

ANDREW KIM                               PRO/PER

CITY OF BELMONT

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT BY CITY OF BELMONT

 

Defendant City of Belmont’s unopposed Motion to Strike is GRANTED without leave to amend pursuant to CCP §436(b). The complaint is not drawn in accordance with CCP §425.10 as it does not contain a statement of facts constituting the cause of action and does not contain a demand for judgment for the relief to which plaintiff claims to be entitled.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 535086       THE JUST GAME COMPANY, LLC VS. SONY COMPUTER

                    ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

 

 

THE JUST GAME COMPANY, LLC            CHRISTOPHER T. MICHELETTI

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMEMERICA LLC  KARINEH KHACHATOURIAN

 

 

DEMURRER TO SECOND Amended COMPLAINT of THE JUST GAME COMPANY, LLC BY SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

 

Defendants SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC and JOHN KOLLER’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is OVERRULED in its entirety.  Plaintiff’s causes of action are sufficiently stated.

 

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to the Secretary of State’s online records for Plaintiff The Just Game Company, LLC, published on the Delaware Secretary of State’s website, as well as the relevant excerpts from the legislative history of Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41.  The request is DENIED as to Page 4 of the Mutual Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement, as this matter does not constitute “facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.”  Evid. Code § 452.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, prevailing 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 535255  FREEDOM PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC. VS. MONGKOL JAEMJENG, ET AL.

 

 

FREEDOM PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC.         BRECK E MILDE

MONGKOL JAEMJAENG                     KIM O DINCEL

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY MONGKOL JAEMJAENG, ET AL.

 

 

This matter is continued pursuant to Court order dated April 19, 2016, to May 12, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., in the Law and Motion Department.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 535536       HUI LIN SU VS. DAPENG LI, ET AL.

 

 

HUI LIN SU                            HAOHAO SONG

DAPENG LI

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR IMPROPER SERVICE BY DAPENG LI

 

The motion to quash is GRANTED.

 

The Hague Service Convention applies to this case. The Convention applies only if state law requires the service to be made abroad. (Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk (1988) 486 U.S. 694, 699-700.) With the exception of publication, “all of these methods for service [under section 413.10] on an individual requires transmission of documents abroad and are therefore subject to the Hague Service Convention.” (Kott v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1135-36.) Plaintiff contends that California does not require service to be made abroad, since the Code of Civil Procedure permits substitute service. (Oppos. P&A at  2: 17-22 [citing Volkswagen, supra].)

 

Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit for two reasons. First, the facts in Volkswagen are distinguishable. In that case, the Illinois long-arm statute permitted service on the foreign defendant’s Illinois corporate agent that was authorized to accept service on behalf of the foreign defendant. For that reason, the Hague Convention did not apply. Here, however, no evidence suggests that anyone was an agent authorized to accept service on behalf of Defendant Li. 

 

Second, Substitute service is permissible on an individual only if personal service cannot be effected with “reasonable diligence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 415.20, subd. (b).) Attempted service at the Atherton residence does not satisfy reasonable diligence, because the only evidence supporting service there is a grant deed from 2012, which at most suggests ownership three years before this action was filed and does not suggest that Defendant ever resided there. Attempted service at the Los Gatos residence is unsupported; the grant deed to that property does not contain Defendant’s name at all.

 

Attempted personal service at Kanglaite’s Redwood City office does not demonstrate reasonable diligence, because there is no showing that the office was Defendant Li’s office. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 415.20, subd. (b) [papers must be left at “his or her” office].)  The efforts at substitute service by leaving papers at the Redwood City office are deficient for the same reason. The only evidence on this issue is that Defendant Li did not regularly work at the Redwood City office. (Declaration of Xu ¶¶ 4 & 5.)

 

Case authority does not provide an exact test for “reasonable diligence,” but the Court concludes that it requires, at a minimum, inquiring with Defendant Kanglaite’s counsel about an address in China, where counsel informed Plaintiff, in September 2015, that Defendant Li resided. Depending on circumstances, reasonable diligence might also require an attempt to effect personal service in China before attempting substitute service there.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, specially appearing Defendant Li 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. The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

      _____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 536193       DAMON BECNEL VS. THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, ET AL.

 

 

DAMON BECNEL                          ARA JABAGCHOURIAN

THE COLLINGSFOUNDATION

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, ETC. BY DAMON BECNEL

 

The Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b). The Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Deem Matters Admitted is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(a)-(b), All those matters set forth in the Request for Admissions [Set 1], dated January, 2016 are hereby deemed admitted. Defendant Dunkel Machinery Moving shall provide verified responses, without objection, to the Form Interrogatories [Set 1] within 20 days of service of the notice of entry of order. Defendant Dunkel Machinery Moving is further ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $500.00 to Plaintiff 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. Thereafter, 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

8

CIV 536287       AUREO AMBRIZ VS. BOETHING TREELAND FARMS, INC.

 

 

AUREO AMBRIZ                             PARVIZ DARABI

BOETHING TREELAND FARMS, INC.            SUZANNA L. WINSLOW

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRst Amended COMPLAINT of AMBRIZ BY BOETHING TREELAND FARMS, INC.

 

The court finds that Defendant Boething Treeland Farms, Inc. has sufficiently complied with the meet and confer requirements of CCP §430.41(a) through the declaration of counsel Suzanna Winslow. The court also finds that defendant has provided sufficient notice of the demurrer and that in signing the stipulation to continue the original hearing on the demurrer from April 12 to April 27, 2016 plaintiff has waived any defects in service.

 

Defendant Boething Treeland Farms, Inc. Request for Judicial Notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code §§451, 452(b), (c), (h). For purposes of judicial notice, the court takes notice of the existence of the document but the court does not take judicial notice of the truth of statements contained therein – Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal App 4h 97, 113.

 

The demurrer for uncertainty as to both the 1st and 2nd causes of action is OVERRULED. A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond. Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal App 4th 612, 616. The allegations here are sufficient to put the defendant on notice as to what claims are being asserted against them. See First Amended Complaint, general allegations at ¶¶9-46, 48-54 and 56-63.

 

The demurrer for failure to state a cause of action is OVERRULED. Whether the plaintiff is an agricultural worker covered by Wage Order 14-2001 is not a question of law, but a question of fact which cannot be determined by this demurrer. A demurrer raises only questions of law, not questions of fact. Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal App 4th 968, 994. Applicability of the Wage Order to the plaintiff is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact, not as a question of law on demurrer.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, prevailing 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

9

CIV 537914      STONE STREET CAPITAL, LLC VS. BERNARD ETCHEVERRIA, JR.

 

 

STONE STREET CAPITAL LLC                 MATTHEW R. EASON

BERNARD ETCHEVERRIA, JR.

 

 

HEARING ON PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF TRANSFER OF STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PAYMENT RIGHTS FILED BY STONE STREET CAPITAL, LLC

 

Petitioner’s unopposed Petition for Approval of Structured Settlement Payment Rights is DENIED without prejudice. The transfer of the structured settlement payment rights does not appear either fair or reasonable under the circumstances and does not appear to be in the best interests of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents. While the transfer complies with the requirements of the Insurance Code and will not contravene other applicable law, the amount to be received, is simply too low.

 

The amount to be received by the transferor [$7,973.00] represents only 3.2% of the discounted present value [$244,207.91] and only 1.9% of the total amount of payments to be transferred [$404,784.12].  This appears to be an unreasonably low amount to be paid. The court finds that such a low payment is not in the best interests of Mr. Etcheverria or his family.

 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


 

 

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

 

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

 

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 537300       KATHY D. GELLER VS. LENDING CLUB CORPORATION, ET AL.

 

 

KATHY D GELLER                        JOHN T JASNOCH

LENDING CLUB CORPORATION

 

COMPLEX CASE STATUS CONFERENCE

 

 

·         This matter is deemed and designated complex, and is assigned to Judge Marie Weiner, Department 2, for all purposes.  The parties should contact Judge Weiner’s department at 650.261.5102 in order to obtain their next appearance date in the case.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County