September 30, 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 ELIZABETH K. LEE

Department 17

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2M

 

SEPTEMBER 24, 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 506704       MARK MIGDAL, ET AL. VS. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,

                   NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

 

 

MARK MIGDAL                           MICHAEL G. ACKERMAN

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.            S. CHRISTOPHER YOO

 

 

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR MARK MIGDAL BY MICHAEL G. ACKERMAN

 

 

·         Counsel Michael G. Ackerman’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Mark Migdal is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 284(2) and CRC § 3.1362. 

 

·         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

2

CIV 509729       MING-HSIANG KAO VS. JOY HOLIDAY, ET AL.

 

 

MING-HSIANG KAO                       ROBERTO RIPAMONTI

JOY HOLIDAY                           BRIAN EDWARD SORIANO

 

 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY ROBERTO RIPAMONTI BY JOY HOLIDAY, JOY EXPRESS, INC., JESSY LIN AND HARRY CHEN

 

 

·         Defendants’ Motion for an Order Compelling Production of Electronically Stored Information is DENIED.  Defendants’ motion is actually a motion to compel further discovery responses, and Defendants failed to include the required separate statement.  Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345. 

 

·         Even if the Court was willing to decide the motion on the merits, the motion would be DENIED on the grounds that the motion is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information.

 

·         Courts generally require a heightened showing of good cause to show the need for physical inspection of a computer because they contain highly personal and sensitive material.  Lee v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. (N.D. Cal. 2013) 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106654.  Here, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing good cause.  Both Plaintiff’s computer expert and Defendants’ computer expert admit that the header data contained in the stolen e-mails demonstrate conclusively that the e-mails were sent from a California IP address located in the area of San Mateo/Burlingame (where Defendants reside) and could not have been sent from Taiwan where Plaintiff resides.  This is corroborated by the IP logs of Plaintiff’s Hotmail account provided by Microsoft showing a user from the same San Mateo IP address accessing the account at exactly the time the e-mails were sent.  Defendants’ computer expert does not contest that this information definitively demonstrates that the e-mails were not sent by Plaintiff.  The data also shows that the e-mails were sent by an older model iPhone, which Plaintiff asserts he does not and has not owned.  Defendants have not shown why computer inspection of his personal electronic devices is necessary given this evidence.  Defendants’ own expert admits that the e-mail account was accessed by someone in the San Mateo area. 

 

·         Defendants have also provided no cause for their overbroad request for Plaintiff’s current electronics whether or not he owned them at the time of the incident.  

 

·         Accessing Plaintiff’s computer and other personal electronic devices also does not appear necessary to confirm (or refute) the alleged hacking.  The Court must “limit the frequency or extent of discovery of electronically stored information, even from a source that is reasonably accessible, if the court determines that any of the following conditions exists: (1) It is possible to obtain the information from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive…”  Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants hacked into his e-mail account, not his computer.  Inspection of Plaintiff’s computer is not necessary to refute the alleged hacking where the information is more reasonably found in the header data and Microsoft’s IP logs. 

 

·         Defendants’ Request for Sanctions is DENIED pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.030(a) and 2031.310(h).  Defendants made an unsuccessful motion, thus a monetary sanction must be imposed on Defendants.  Plaintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $2,765.00 is GRANTED.

 

·         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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

3

CIV 515621       PARK PLAZA TOWERS OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. PATRICK

                   MCERLAIN, ET AL.

 

 

PARK PLAZA TOWERS OWNERS ASSOCIATION  GRANT H. BAKER

PATRICK MCERLAIN                      RICHARD S. BAUM

 

 

SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION BY PARK PLAZA TOWERS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, JOSEPH SCHREURS, LADONNA HORWITZ, SHERRY BERENSTEIN, CYNTHIA SHREURS, ROBERT FAUSSNER, JULIE ROBLES, DAVID BEHLING AND BEHLING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

 

 

·         This matter has been continued to September 29, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion department.

 

 

MOTION TO STAY THE ACTION BY PARK PLAZA TOWERS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, JOSEPH SCHREURS, LADONNA HORWITZ, SHERRY BERENSTEIN, CYNTHIA SHREURS, ROBERT FAUSSNER, JULIE ROBLES, DAVID BEHLING AND BEHLING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

 

 

·         This matter has been continued to September 29, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion department.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

4

CIV 519709       IRMA MEDRANO VS. WESTERN INVENTION SUBMISSION

                   CORPORATION, ET AL.

 

 

IRMA MEDRANO                          PAUL G. MINOLETTI

WESTERN INVENTION SUBMISSION CORP.    RANDOLPH S. HICKS

 

 

APPLICATION OF BRIAN S. MALKIN TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR DEFENDANTS WESTERN INVENTION SUBMISSION CORPORATION, WESTERN INVENTHELP AND INTROMARK, INC.

 

 

·         Brian S. Malkin’s Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendants Western Invention Submission Corporation, Western InventHelp and Intromark, Inc. in this matter is GRANTED pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40, upon proof that counsel has paid the $500 fee now required by the San Mateo County Superior Court pursuant to Govt. Code § 70617.  He has met all of the other requirements of CRC 9.40, which are the only requirements to be eligible for admission pro hac vice. 

 

·         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. 

 

 

APPLICATION OF STEVEN B. LARCHUK TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR DEFENDANTS WESTERN INVENTION SUBMISSION CORPORATION, WESTERN INVENTHELP AND INTROMARK, INC.

 

 

·         Steven B. Larchuk’s Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendants Western Invention Submission Corporation, Western InventHelp and Intromark, Inc. in this matter is GRANTED pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40, upon proof that counsel has paid the $500 fee now required by the San Mateo County Superior Court pursuant to Govt. Code § 70617.  He has met all of the other requirements of CRC 9.40, which are the only requirements to be eligible for admission pro hac vice. 

 

·         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 525077       LUCIUS BARKER, ET AL. vs. 850 OAK GROVE, LLC

 

 

LUCIUS BARKER                         JERRY Y. FONG

850 OAK GROVE, LLC                    JEFFREY M. VUCINICH

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COMPLAINT of BARKER BY 850 OAK GROVE, LLC

 

 

·         This matter is moot.  This matter was dismissed with prejudice on September 17, 2014.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

6

CIV 525519       DARRYL KEITH PHILLIPS vS. FELICIA BYARS, ET AL.

 

 

DARRYL KEITH PHILLIPS                 PRO/PER

FELICIA BYARS                         JOHN L. FLEGEL

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRST Amended COMPLAINT of PHILLIPS BY FELICIA BYARS AND MATTHEW ORTEGA

 

 

·         Defendants Felicia Byars and Matthew Ortega's Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is sustained without leave to amend. Here, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Felicia Byars wrote an untrue statement in her police report as if it were true and that Matthew Ortega "approved it."  The conduct complained of took place during an investigation as part of the officer’s duties and is therefore cloaked with the immunity provided by Government Code § 821.6

 

·         Moving attorney 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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

7

CIV 527288       SHELLY KUDROV VS. PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, ET

                   AL.

 

 

SHELLY KUDROV                         BRIAN K. HILLARD

PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of KUDROV BY DAVID ELLISON, M.D.

 

 

·         This matter is moot.  Plaintiff has notified the Court that Plaintiff will file an amended complaint on September 23, 2014.

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BY DAVID ELLISON, M.D.

 

 

·         This matter is moot.  Plaintiff has notified the Court that Plaintiff will file an amended complaint on September 23, 2014.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

8

CIV 528847       SHAMIL ALUKAY VS. CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, ET AL.

 

 

SHAMIL ALUKAY                         CHARLES T. MARSHALL

CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY              RONALD M. ARLAS

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of ALUKAY BY CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY DBA CENTRAL MORTGAGE LOAN SERVICING COMPANY, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. AND DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY

 

 

·         Plaintiff filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings on June 11, 2014, indicating that an automatic stay was caused by his filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.  No notice has been given to the Court that the stay has been lifted.  Accordingly, the parties are to appear and give the Court an update on the status of this case.  For the time being, Defendants’ Demurrer to Complaint is CONTINUED to October 10, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion department.  

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

9

CLJ 462604       DISCOVER BANK VS. TRICIA M. SARTAIN

 

 

DISCOVER BANK                         HARVEY M. MOORE

TRICIA M. SARTAIN

 

 

MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT, RECALL AND QUASH WRIT OF EXECUTION AND RETURN OF PROPERTY LEVIED UPON BY TRICIA M. SARTAIN

 

 

·         Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED. Defendant has established by competent and admissible evidence that service of the Summons and Complaint by substituted service was not performed in accordance with California law. Defendant’s motion is timely and complies with CCP § 473 (b).

 

·         The moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Court's tentative ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to CRC 3.1312, and provide notice thereof to all counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  A copy of the order is to be delivered directly to Judge Elizabeth K. Lee in Department 17.

 


 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:25 PM

© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County