September 28, 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 jonathan e. karesh

Department 20

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 8C

 

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

 

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

CIV526074     ILA R. LOEB, ET AL VS. LENCIONI CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

 

 

ILA R. LOEB                            MATTHEW R. SCHOECH

IVARY MANAGEENT COMPANY                MICHAEL J. ESTEP

 

 

motion TO LIFT DISCOVERY STAY

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

 

This matter will be heard in Department 7, the Hon. Steven L. Dylina, as Judge Dylina was the one who issued the order.

 



9:00

Line: 2

CIV530285     RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER VS. FARIN NAMDARAN YEGANEH

 

 

RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER                  AMANDA FITZSIMMONS

FARIN NAMDARAN YEGANEH                 WILLIAM E. GILG

 

 

MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion is denied without prejudice.  Moving parties have not made a sufficient showing as to several of the Tech-Bilt factors.  As a result, the court cannot properly evaluate the good faith of the settlement.  Specifically, moving parties have not made a sufficient showing as to a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ recovery, the settling defendants’ proportionate share of liability, the value of the settlement and the settling defendants’ financial condition. 

 

Rough Approximation of Plaintiffs’ Total Recovery

 

Plaintiffs’ claimed damages include lost proceeds from the sale of certain properties.  However, there is no evidence to support the stated value.  The motion refers only to values stated in an appendix attached to the complaint. 

 

Settling Defendants’ Proportionate Share of Liability

 

The motion addresses apportionment of liability among the co-defendants, however, there is no indication as to what extent the settling defendants are liable to the plaintiffs for the alleged conduct; nor is there the evidence that supports defendants’ proportionate share.  The Casas declaration states only that settling defs deny they are liable to plts.  Settling parties have not provided substantial evidence to support assumptions regarding the nature and extent of the settling defendants’ liability.  Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337. 

 

Amount of Settlement

 

Where something other than cash is given in settlement, the settling parties must establish the value of the settlement.  Without this information, the court cannot determine whether the settlement is within the ballpark of the settling defendants’ proportionate liability, nor the amount of the setoff to which the nonsettling defs are entitled.  Franklin Mint Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1556-1560.  The moving party must set forth the value of the consideration paid and an evidentiary basis for that valuation and demonstrate that the valuation was reached in a sufficiently adversarial manner to justify the presumption that a reasonable value was reached.  Id.  at 1558.  Here, the valuation is supported only by hearsay assertions that plaintiffs engaged in various activities including driving by the outside of the properties, checking real estate valuation websites, checking public records regarding encumbrances and taxes and consulting real estate brokers to determine current market value as well as sale costs.  

 

Settling Defendants’ Financial Condition and Insurance Limits

 

The Casas declaration makes assertions as to defendant’s lack of insurance and employment They have not provided any declarations or other evidence as to their financial condition.

 

Defendantt Fran and Ken Yeganeh’s objection to the declaration of Varnell Owens is overruled.

 

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: 3

CIV534539     LAWRENCE P. PURCELL VS. ERIC CARL DEBODE, ETAL

 

 

LAWRENCE P. PURCELL                    PHILIP L. GREGORY

ERIC CARL DEBODE                       RICHARD J. VAZNAUGH

 

 

MOTION FOR PRODUCTION, SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE, LOG OF WITHHELD DOCUMENTS, AND FOR VERIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE; AND FOR SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motion to Compel is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, as follows:

The motion to compel Plaintiff to (1) serve a further response to Defendants’ June 8, 2016 request for supplemental production of documents (Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 2031.050), and (2) to produce additional responsive documents, is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, with an explanation. 

On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff served an unverified response to Defendants’ Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 2031.050 request, stating “Plaintiff has already produced all responsive, non-privileged, documents in his possession, custody, or control located after a reasonable and diligent search, responsive to Defendants’ prior Requests for Production of Documents.  There are no supplemental documents.”  Ordinarily this response would be sufficient, because a party cannot produce documents he does not have.  But it appears Plaintiff may be (it is somewhat unclear) improperly applying a cut-off date and not producing documents obtained after a certain date.  To be clear, it does not matter when Defendants’ original requests for production of documents were served.  Plaintiff is obligated to produce to Defendants all responsive, unprivileged documents in his possession, custody or control that he “acquired or discovered” (Code Civ. Proc. 2031.050) at any time up through September 15, 2016, which is the date Plaintiff served his verification for his July 12, 2016 response.  If Plaintiff contends he has already produced all responsive, unprivileged documents that he acquired or discovered up through September 15, 2016, then he need not take further action.  Otherwise, Plaintiff is ordered to amend his response and produce any additional responsive, unprivileged documents within 20 days of this Order.  

The motion to compel production of an additional privilege log is GRANTED-IN-PART, also with an explanation.   The dispute here appears to center on whether documents either created or obtained after the Complaint was filed (July 6, 2015) need to be placed on a privilege log.  Neither party cites any relevant authority on this point.  Defendants, however, note that the Court’s March 22, 2016 Order states that Plaintiff shall log “all” privileged documents.  It is true that parties to litigation sometimes stipulate that documents created after litigation commences need not be identified on a privilege log, sometimes for the reason that they are too voluminous and almost certainly privileged.  Here, however, there is no such stipulation and the Court has no information regarding whether privileged documents created after the Complaint was filed would be voluminous.  Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to serve, within 20 days of this Order, a supplemental privilege log properly identifying all withheld documents, included those created or obtained after the Complaint was filed.  The document descriptions should be sufficiently detailed to enable the Court to assess the claimed privilege.  

Plaintiff’s Opposition includes a lengthy discussion of whether the “common-interest” privilege applies to certain documents on the privilege log.  That issue is not raised in this motion, and thus the Court will not address it. 

The motion to compel Plaintiff to serve a verification for his July 12, 2016 response is DENIED AS MOOT, as Plaintiff has now done that.  See Opp., Ex. 1.  To the extent Plaintiff did not serve a verification for his most recent privilege log (dated March 30, 2016), the motion to compel that verification is GRANTED.  Any additional or supplemental privilege logs must be accompanied by a verification stating that the log contains a complete list of all withheld documents. 

The request for sanctions is DENIED.

 

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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20. 

 

 



9:00

Line: 4

CIV536047     MT. DIABLO INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC VS. SOUTH BAY REAL

                ESTATE COMMERCE GROUP, LLP

 

 

MT. DIABLO INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC       MILLA L. LVOVICH

SOUTH BAY REAL ESTATE COMMERCE GROUP, LLP MARK A. RUSHIN

 

 

SANCTIONS FOR FILING DEMURRERS IN BAD FAITH AS TO MARK A. RUSHIN

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Both attorneys are ordered to appear.  The Court will make its decision regarding sanctions after the hearing tomorrow.

 



9:00

Line: 5

CIV537384     JASON CROSS, ET AL. VS. FACEBOOK, INC.

 

 

JASON CROSS                            MARK PUNZALAN

FACEBOOK, INC.                         JULIE E. SCHWARTZ

 

 

APPLICATION TO APPREAS AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

 

James R. McCullagh’s Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant Facebook, Inc. in this matter is GRANTED pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.

 

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: 6

CIV538961      LUCKY STRIKE FARMS VS. PAUL GORMAN, ET AL.

 

 

LUCKY STRIKE FARMS, INC.               MICHAEL D. LIBERTY

PAUL GORMAN

 

MOTION TO QUASH

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion of Defendants Paul Gorman and 1248671 Ontario, Inc. dba Macartney Farms (collectively “Defendants”) to Quash Service of Summons, is CONTINUED to 9:00 a.m. on December 1, 2016 in the Law and Motion Department. 

 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10(a)(1), Defendants move to quash service of the summons on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants.  Specifically, the court has neither general nor specific jurisdiction over Defendants. 

 

On a motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction 418.10(a)(1), the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that “minimum contacts” exist between defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.  (Mihlon v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710; Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232-1233.) “Minimum contacts” means the relationship between the nonresident and the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”  (International Shoe Co. v. State of Wash. (1945) 326 US 310, 316.)  If the plaintiff meets this burden, then it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.  (Buchanan v. Soto (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362.) 

 

It is unclear whether “minimum contacts” exist between Defendants and California in light of the conflicting declarations submitted by Plaintiff and Defendants.  (See Papazian Decl.; Macartney Decl.; Gorman Reply Decl.)  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a continuance to allow discovery into the issue of personal jurisdiction over Defendants, is GRANTED. The granting of a continuance for discovery to obtain evidence which would support jurisdiction lies in the discretion of the trial court.  (See Beckman v. Thompson (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 481, 486-487.)  Thus, Plaintiff is permitted to conduct discovery solely on the issue of personal jurisdiction as to Defendants.  The parties may then file and serve supplemental briefs by no later than November 22, 2016.

 

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: 7

CLJ517713     FIA CARD SERVICES NA VS. MARIANNA SHEKHTMAN

 

 

FIA CARD SERVICES NA                   ROBERT SCOTT KENNARD

MARIANNA SHEKHTMAN                     Pro/PER

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories is granted. Defendant has waived all objections.

 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to request for production of documents is granted. Defendant has waived all objections.

 

Plaintiff’s motion to deem matters admitted is granted. It is ordered that Defendant admits matters one through four set forth in Plaintiff’s request for admissions, set one, served May 19, 2016.

 

Plaintiff shall serve verified responses without objection to the form interrogatories and request for production of documents that Plaintiff served on May 19, 2016. Plaintiff shall serve the responses no later than 14 calendar days after 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, Plaintiff 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: 8

CLJ537267      SPRINGLEAF FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. VS. LIBERTY

                  CANDELARI

 

 

SPRINGLEAF FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.    TODD L. CRAMER

LIBERTY CANDELARIA                     HELEN GLYNN

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COMPLAINT OF SPRINGLEAF FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff Springleaf Financial Services, Inc.’s unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of Springleaf Financial Services, Inc. against Liberty Candelaria aka Liberty T. Candelaria in the amount of $7,943.36 ($6,853.36 principal + $790 costs + $300 atty’s fees).

 

“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” CCP sec. 437c(f)(1).

 

A plaintiff has met his burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that cause of action. CCP sec. 437c(p)(1). Once the plaintiff has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action. Ibid.

 

Defendant failed to oppose the motion, therefore Defendant has not shown that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists. 

 

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.

 

 


 

 

 

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, September 28, 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

Line: 1

CIV535307     SEPIDEH SAEEDI VS. PAYAM P. ABOLMOLUKI, ET AL.

 

 

SEPIDEH SAEEDI                         BALDWIN-KENNEDY, RONDA

PAYAM P. ABOLMOLUKI                    Pro/PER

 

 

MOTION to CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL DATES

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to Continue Mandatory Settlement Conference and Jury Trial is GRANTED.  The parties should confer and attempt to agree upon new dates 60 – 90 days beyond the currently set dates.  In the absence of an agreement, the parties should inform the Court at the time of the hearing of this matter what trial dates are available for them beginning in January of 2017.

 

 


9:00

Line: 2

CIV538419     JOE BAKER, ET AL. VS. SUNRUN INC., ET AL.

 

 

JOE BAKER                               FRANCIS S. BOTTINI, JR.

SUNRUN, INC.                            ANNA ERICKSON WHITE

 

COMPLEX CASE STATUS CONFERENCE 

Notes:

 

The Complex Case Status Conference is continued for 60 days to November 29, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. on the Presiding Judge’s Law and Motion calendar as the case is not yet at issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County