If an appearance is required or if a party has provided timely notice of intent to appear, any party may appear telephonically through Court Call. To do so, you must contact Court Call at (888) 882-6878 no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day prior to the hearing.

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

Law and Motion Calendar

Judge: Honorable GERALD J. BUCHWALD

Department 10

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 8D

JULY 28, 2010

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

you must call (650) 363-1882 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

CIV 482215 ROOSEVELT KEYES VS. TEISHA TALLMAN

ROOSEVELT KEYES PRO/PER

TEISHA TALLMAN TODD P. EMANUEL

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FILED BY TEISHA TALLMAN

GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

The Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 11 and 16 moot this Motion because the original response solely consisted of objections and the Supplemental Responses provided a response to these Interrogatories. Therefore, the Motion as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 9, 11 and 16 is DENIED as moot.

As for Special Interrogatories Nos. 13 and 15, Supplemental Responses are basically the same response as the original responses. However, there does not appear to be anything improper with the original responses. Thus, the Motion as to Interrogatories Nos. 13 and 15 is DENIED.

The Motion as to Special Interrogatory No. 19 is GRANTED, and the responsive information shall be served upon cross-complainant on or before August 20, 2010. Said response, however, shall be subject to a protective order as set out below.

· As to Special Interrogatory No. 19, the Court finds that the mere identity of Mr. Keyes’ female massage customers from his date of hire to date of termination is not information where the customers had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Nor is the information such that disclosure would be a serious invasion of privacy. Disclosure is not so sensitive here. Alternatively, the Court finds that the interests of the litigants and the public in public proceedings. The discovery of the identity and location of persons having discoverable knowledge are proper subjects of civil discovery.

· In reaching the above-stated findings, the Court relies on Pioneer Electronics (USA) v. Superior Court ( ) 40 Cal. 4th 360, at 370-371, and Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal. App.4th 1242, 1245 – 1250.

· Because private information is involved, however, shall be subject to disclosure only to the attorneys for the parties and their employees, i.e., “attorneys eyes only”, until entry of a formal Confidentiality Order by this Court.

· Counsel to prepare and submit a form of Order reflecting this ruling and to prepare and submit a form of Confidentiality Order governing the production of the requested information.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CIV 486140 TODD SMITH VS. CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE company

TODD SMITH JONATHAN FRIED

CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY JOHN M. SORICH

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FILED BY J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA., ANN THORN, CALIFORNIA RCONVEYANCE COMPANY

· GRANTED. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted pursuant to CCP §581(f)(1) and (2).

· CCP §581(f)(1) provides that the Court may dismiss a Complaint after a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend and either party moves for dismissal. Where a party is given leave to amend and fails to so within the time specified by the court, an action is subject to dismissal under CCP §581(f)(2). Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 610.

· In this case, on 3/24/10, the Court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint with and without leave to amend. Plaintiffs were given until 4/3/10 to serve an amended Complaint. As of the date of this Motion, they have not done so. Consequently, the action is hereby Dismissed With Prejudice, defendant to recover its costs on Dismissal.

· The tentative ruling becomes 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

CIV 486926 JOSE DE JESUS FREGOSO VS. NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

JOSE DE JESUS FREGOSO MICHAEL PATRICK ROONEY

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION STUART B. WOLFE

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT BY PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

· DENIED AS MOOT.

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of FREGOSO BY PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

· SUSTAINED, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, ON GROUNDS OF UNCERTAINTY. The Demurrer to the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend based on uncertainty. Regardless of prior rulings, the allegations made with respect to the Demurring Defendant are uncertain, where there are almost no allegations made specifically against the Demurring Defendant yet many allegations are made against “Defendants,” which should include the Demurring Defendant, even though Plaintiffs essentially admit in their Opposition that these allegations are not intended against the Demurring Defendant. If Plaintiffs seek to make Demurring Defendant a part of the instant action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 389, then the allegations should so reflect.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CIV 490030 TOTAL RENAL CARE, INC. VS. JSP ENTERPRISES, LLC., ET AL.

TOTAL RENAL CARE, INC., JOHN H. FEENEY

JSP ENTERPRISES, LLC. NANCY J. DEPASQUALE

DEMURRER TO SECOnd Amended COMPLAINT of TOTAL RENAL CARE, INC., BY JSP ENTERPRISES, LLC., JAMES H. YANG

· SUSTAINED, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, IN PART; OVERRULED IN PART.

Defendants JSP Enterprises, LLC and James H. Yang’s special demurrer to the 2nd cause of action (breach of contract) and general demurer to the 4th cause of action (negligent misrepresentation) are Overruled. The Complaint is sufficiently certain as to the allegation that both JSP and Yang entered into the subject lease. As to Yang, alter ego is sufficiently pled.

Defendants’ general demurrer to the 2nd( breach of contract) and 3rd cause of action (bad faith) is Sustained With Leave To Amend as to Plaintiff Davita Inc. and Overruled as to Defendant James H. Yang. The Complaint does not plead a third party beneficiary status of Davita Inc., and it follows from that defect that no claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing can be asserted by Davita. As to Yang, however, there are sufficient alter ego allegations and he can be held liable on both these causes of action if those allegations are true.

· Amended Pleadings, if any, to be filed and served within 20 days of this Order.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CIV 495309 NAOMI BROWN SOBOCINSKI VS. ALAN D. BROWN, ET AL.

NAOMI BROWN SOBOCINSKI ISAAC DELEON GOODMAN

ALAN D. BROWN DENNIS W. CHIU

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of SOBOCINSKI BY ALAN D. BROWN, A-ABCO RENTS & SELLS, INC.

· OFF CALENDAR. A First Amended Complaint having been filed on July 7, 2010, this Demurrer is now Moot and is Ordered off-calendar.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CLJ 487748 FIRST RESOLUTION INVESTMENT CORP. VS. JOHNNY W. BROWNING

FIRST RESOLUTION INVESTMENT CORP. ROBERT SCOTT KENNARD

JOHNNY W. BROWNING PRO/PER

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES FILED BY FIRST RESOLUTION INVESTMENT CORP.

· HEARING REQUIRED. Plaintiff’s counsel to address whether or not the Defendant’s responsive documents are adequate to show the basis of his defense that the debt has already been paid.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CLJ 490078 ADVANCED DISCOVERY SERVICES VS. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH CARCIONE, ET AL.

ADVANCED DISCOVERY SERVICES RUDY GABA

LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH CARCIONE JOSEPH W. CARCIONE

MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS FILED BY ADVANCED DISCOVERY SERVICES

· OFF CALENDAR. The Court is in receipt of a letter dated July 22, 2010, from Movant’s Counsel advising that a Settlement of the case is pending and requesting that this matter go off-calendar. It Is So Ordered.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

CLJ 491265 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, LLC. VS. AMBER D. WILLIAMS, ET AL.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, LLC. ROBERT SCOTT KENNARD

AMBER D. WILLIAMS PRO/PER

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSE FILED BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY, LLC.

· GRANTED. Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Answers to Interrogatories and to Deem Matters Admitted is GRANTED.

· On April 14, 2010, Plaintiff served Defendant Amber Williams with the following discovery requests: Request for Production of Documents [Set No. 1]; Form Interrogatories [Set No. 1]; and Request for Admissions, Set No. One. Verified responses were due on or before May 19, 2010. No responses were received and on June 3, 2010 a letter was mailed to Defendant requesting responses to the discovery by June 14, 2010. No discovery responses were received.

· Defendant has waived any objections to the discovery requests and shall provide complete and verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, and Form Interrogatories, without objection, by August 11, 2010. All of those matters set forth in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set No. One are hereby deemed admitted. Defendant shall additionally pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $265.00 by August 11, 2010.

_____________________________________________________________________

9:01

CLJ 201896 SIMON S. LAM VS. RICHARD GUMPAL, ET AL.

SIMON S. LAM KEN A. CHAN

RICHARD GUMPAL

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT (UNLAWFUL DETAINER) of LAM BY CINDY GUMPAL

· OVERRULED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant Cindy Gumpal’s demurrer to the complaint is OVERRULED without prejudice for failure to provide proper notice pursuant to CCP §1005(b) and CRC Rule 2.306(a)(1).

_____________________________________________________________________

9:02

CIV 496200 RAJESH PATEL VS. GORDON DRUMMOND

RAJESH PATEL WILLIAM F. DEVINE

GORDON DRUMMOND

PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION.

· DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s petition to compel binding arbitration is denied without prejudice due to failure to provide a proof of service of either the petition or the Notice of Hearing.

_____________________________________________________________________

POSTED: 2:50 PM