March 3, 2015
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 2G

 

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

 

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 508888       CINDY K. HUNG, ET AL. VS. TRIBAL TECHNOLOGIES, ET AL.

 

 

CINDY K. HUNG                         LYNDA HUNG

TRIBAL TECHNOLOGIES                   KASEY C. TOWNSEND

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT BY JOSEPH PETER VIERRA AND VICTORIA DINOVICH

 

 

·         Appear to advise the Court of outcome of the meet and confer session to streamline the operative pleading.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

2

CIV 514780       STUART CUMMINGS VS. STEPHEN CUMMINGS, ET AL.

 

 

STUART CUMMINGS                       GLENN M. SMITH

STEPHEN CUMMINGS                      MICHAEL C. JOHNSTON

 

 

HEARING FOR ORDER TO RELEASE ATTACHED PROPERTY

 

 

  • Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant’s Motion to Discharge, or Alternatively, Modify Writ of Attachment is DENIED.

               

  • Cross-Defendant Stuart Cummings, the contractor, argues that the suspension of his license and/or his failure to obtain Workers’ Compensation insurance for his employees was not his responsibility. The Court disagrees.  It was his sole duty to maintain his contractors license and comply with law. If Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant did not have the money to pay for Workers’ Compensation insurance, he should have stopped work on the projects.  His arguments on this point are not convincing or persuasive.  His conduct in this regard also precludes any substantial compliance under Business & Professions Code section 7031(e).

 

  • Given the conflicting amounts regarding disgorgement being argued, there is no reason to reduce the amount of the May 27, 2014 RTAO and Writ in the amount of $947,790 plus fees. Moving party argues the amount should be $127,468 but has alleged in his verified complaint he has been paid $400,000 (Complaint, par. 38).  Additionally, it is not entirely clear whether the amounts include offsets and other payments which are not allowed pursuant to White v. Cridlebaugh (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 506.

 

  • 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

3

CIV 526050       LIJIE JIANG VS. IVYMAX, INC.

 

 

LIJIE JIANG                           MICHAEL H. KIM

IVYMAX, INC.                          ANDREW G. WATTERS

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND FOR SANCTIONS BY LIJIE JIANG

 

 

  • The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant IVYMAX, INC. by Plaintiff LIJIE JIANG is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to provide full and complete, verified responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 3-19 no later than March 13, 2015. 

 

  • The Court in Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771 stated:  “Parties, like witnesses, are required to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.  Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the information sought is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. A party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer.  Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response”. [Id. at 783 (citations omitted)]. 

 

  • Plaintiff’s request for Monetary 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

4

CIV 528270       PAMELA BETH LEVINE VS. CONNIE CLEMENTE

 

 

PAMELA BETH LEVINE                    HUGH ANTHONY LEVINE

CONNIE CLEMENTE                       MICHAEL J. SMITH

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA FOR THE DEPOSITION OF MARIE CLEMENTE OR FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER BY CONNIE CLEMENTE

 

 

·         DENIED. The deposition of Connie Clemente could provide and/or lead to relevant evidence on liability and damages.

 

·         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

5

CIV 530422       SANJAY SHAH, MD VS. EL CAMINO CHARTER LINES, INC., ET

                   AL.

 

 

SANJAY SHAH                           PAGE R. BARNES

EL CAMINO CHARTER LINES, INC.         WALTER E. SHJEFLO

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY FROM DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT EL CAMINO CHARTER LINES, INC. AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY SANJAY SHAH

 

 

  • Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant SANJAY SHAH, M.D.’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendant and Cross-Complainant EL CAMINO CHARTER LINES, INC. is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to serve full and complete responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) no later than March 13, 2015.  While the Court notes that Defendant belatedly served responses to this discovery after the instant motion was filed, Defendant is not entitled to assert objections. [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(a)].     

 

  • Plaintiff’s request for Monetary 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

6

CIV 530863       KEVIN KASTER VS. INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING, INC.,

                   ET AL.

 

 

KEVIN KASTER                          CRAIG S. MILLER

INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING         JOHN ANDREW BIARD

 

 

DEMURRER TO JOINT ANSWER OF INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING INC. AND CITY OF FOSTER CITY TO COMPLAINT of KEVIN KASTER FILED BY KEVIN KASTER

 

 

·         Moot.  A Second Amended Answer was filed on February 11, 2015.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

7

CIV 531023       WILLIAM B. SHINE, ET AL. VS. LAWRENCE A. JACOBSON,

                   ESQ. ET AL.

 

 

WILLIAM B. SHINE                      MICHELE L. MCKEE

LAWRENCE A. JACOBSON, ESQ.            JOHN B. SULLIVAN

 

 

DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT FOR: (1) LEGAL MALPRACTICE; (2) CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD; (3) LEGAL MALPRACTICE/DUAL REPRESENTATION OF ADVERSE INTEREST ; AND (4) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BY LAWRENCE A. JACOBSON, ESQ. AND COHEN AND JACOBSON, LLP

 

 

·         The Court recuses itself in these matters.  Please contact the clerk of Hon. Robert D Foiles, Dept. 21, (650)261-5121 to schedule a new hearing date.

 

 

MOTION OF DEFENDANTS LAWRENCE A. JACOBSON AND COHEN & JACOBSON LLC TO STRIKE ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR (1) LEGAL MALPRACTICE; (2) CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD; (3) LEGAL MALPRACTICE/DUAL REPRESENTATION OF ADVERSE INTERESTS; and BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BY LAWRENCE A. JACOBSON, ESQ. AND COHEN AND JACOBSON, LLP

 

 

·         See above.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

8

CLJ 210309       MOAB INVESTMENT GROUP LLC VS. MARY V. NEUMEYER

 

 

MOAB INVESTMENT GROUP LLC             BRENDA CRUZ KEITH

MARY V. NEUMEYER

 

 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED MATTERS BY WALTER NEUMEYER AND MARY THERESA NEUMEYER

 

 

  • The Motion to Consolidate Related Matters brought by “Necessary Parties in Interest Walter Neumeyer and Mary Theresa Neumeyer” is DENIED. 

 

  • The Moving Parties lack standing to bring this Motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 367.

 

  • Even if the moving parties had standing, consolidation pursuant to CCP 1048 is not warranted.  In this case, consolidation does not promote judicial economy or efficiency of the litigation between Plaintiff and named Defendants. All three cases sought to be consolidated are unlawful detainer actions, and are therefore entitled to trial on an expedited basis with limited discovery. Title does not appear to be an issue, as none of the named Defendants have asserted an affirmative defense relating to title, nor is there a pending unlimited jurisdiction case regarding title.

 

  • Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of the Opposition to the Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.

 

  • 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 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

9

CLJ 500166       RABUA ABABSEH VS. FELICITAS GALO

 

 

RANIA ABABSEH                         DAN M. HIMMELHEBER

FELICITAS GALO                        JESSICA A. NUDELMAN

 

 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CLJ 521868 WITH CLJ 500166 BY RANIA ABABSEH

 

 

·         The Court would be inclined to grant this Motion provided that moving party served all parties in both cases with the subject Motion and supporting papers.  The proof of service in each case indicates service of form interrogatories, not the instant Motion.  For this reason the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

 

·         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

10

CLJ 521868       LAILA ABABSEH VS. FELCITAS GALO, ET AL.

 

 

LAILA ABABSEH                         RICHARD B. GOLDEN

FELICITAS GALO                        JESSICA A. NUDELMAN

 

 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASE HEARING ON CASE CLJ 500166 BY RANIA ABABSEH

 

 

·         The Court would be inclined to grant this Motion provided that moving party served all parties in both cases with the subject Motion and supporting papers.  The proof of service in each case indicates service of form interrogatories, not the instant Motion.  For this reason, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

 

·         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

11

CLJ 530928       CAVALRY SPV I, LLC VS. CLAYTON HALLFORD

 

 

CAVALRY SPV I, LLC                    BRIAN N. WINN

CLAYTON HALLFORD

 

 

MOTION BY PLAINTIFF CAVALRY SPV I, LLC TO TRANSFER VENUE BY CAVALRY SPV I, LLC

 

 

·         DENIED. A review of the file indicates that Defendant has not been served or made an appearance in this case. There is nothing to prevent Plaintiff from dismissing this case and filing the case in Sacramento County if it believes Sacramento County to be the proper venue.

 

·         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.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:01

12

CLJ 210733       GSP ASSOCIATES, INC. VS. BRUNILDA CLARK

 

 

GSP ASSOCIATES, INC.                  SUNITA KAPOOR

BRUNILDA CLARK

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER SUMMONS BY BRUNILDA CLARK

 

 

·         Moot. Case dismissed February 24, 2015.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County