February 18, 2018
Special Set Matters 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

 

Special Set Calendar

Judge: Honorable JONATHAN E.KARESH

Department 20

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 8C

 

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

 

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

 you must call (650) 261-5120 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: 7

CIV524843     ELIZABETH KARNAZES VS. JOHN FERRY, ET AL.

 

 

JOHN FERRY                             RANDOLPH S. HICKS

ELIZABETH KARNAZES                     PRO/PER

 

 

JOHN AND KIRSTEN PERRY’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion of Cross-Plaintiff John Ferry (“Cross-Plaintiff”) to Reconsider the Improper Denial of Cross-Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Cross-Defendant Elizabeth Karnazes (“Cross-Defendant”) to Provide Further Responses, is CONTINUED to 9:00 a.m. on March 15, 2018 in Department 20, for:  (1) Cross-Plaintiff to provide Cross-Defendant with adequate notice of this motion and the new hearing date (see C.C.P. sec. 1005(b)); and (2) for Cross-Plaintiff to file and serve a memorandum of points and authorities and declaration in support of this motion for reconsideration. 

 

Cross-Plaintiff appears to be claiming that Cross-Defendant failed to give notice of her intent to contest the hearing for the underlying discovery motion, but it is unclear whether Cross-Plaintiff is alleging failure to give notice to Ms. Beltramo (who appears to represent Mr. Ferry only as Defendant, not Cross-Plaintiff), to Cross-Plaintiff, or both. Thus, Cross-Plaintiff should address this issue in his declaration. 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2018 Superior Court of San Mateo County