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
In
and for the
Presiding Judge - Law
and Motion Calendar
Judge: Honorable Stephen m. hall
Department 24
400 County Center, Courtroom
2C
MARCH 10, 2010 |
If you plan to appear on
any case on this calendar,
you must call (650)
363-4812 before 4:00 p.m.
|
|
Case Title
/ Nature of Case |
9:00
1
CIV 482368 THERESA BOROWY VS. KINDRED NURSING
CENTERS
THERESA BOROWY JAMES
GEAGAN
KINDRED NURSING CENTERS
WEST JODIE
C. FEUSNER
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
DATE FILED BY KINDRED NURSING CENTERS WEST, LLC
·
Motion to continue trial is granted.
·
Appear to set new mandatory settlement conference and
trial dates.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
2
CLJ 462214 NATIONAL COLLECTION AGENCY VS MARK
THE NATIONAL COLLECTION
AGENCY FRED
KEEPERMAN
MARK G. DURHAM
CLAIM OF EXEMPTION FILED
BY MARK G. DURHAM
·
Claim of exemption is denied.
_____________________________________________________________________
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
In
and for the
Law and Motion Calendar
Judge: Honorable CLIFFORD V. CRETAN
Department 6
400 County Center, Courtroom
7B
MARCH 10, 2010 |
If you plan to appear on
any case on this calendar,
you must call (650)
363-1882 before 4:00 p.m.
|
|
Case Title / Nature of Case |
9:00
1
CIV 446736 JEAN G. ASHTON VS ANTHONY DANILOO, ET
AL.
JEAN G. ASHTON GEORGE
G. BENETATOS
ANTHONY DANILOO T.
ROBERT FINALY
MOTION TO LIFT STAY FOR LEAVE
TO FILE COMPLAINT FILED BY ELLINGTON LOAN ACQUISITION 2007-2 LLC
·
Non-party
Ellington Loan Acquisition 2007-2, LLC’s Request for Judicial Notice is
GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
The Court takes judicial notice of Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8, which are filings in
either the state or federal court. The
Court denies the motion with regard to Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7.
·
The Motion to Lift the Stay is DENIED. There is no evidence that the stays provided
for by sections 105 or 362 of the Bankruptcy Code are no longer in full
force. (See Request for Judicial Notice,
Exh. 8, p.16.) The instant action was
consolidated and Cross-Complaints have been filed resulting in the proceedings
encompassing more issues than that of the original interpleader action.
·
The Motion for
Leave to File a Complaint in Intervention is therefore denied as moot. Moving party may refile when the stay is
lifted.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
2
CIV 478072 SIERRA LUMBER VS WILLIAM GARLOCK, ET AL
SIERRA LUMBER & FENCE
CO INC. JOSEPH
P. THOMPSON
WILLIAM GARLOCK
MOTION COMPELLING DEBTORS
OBEDIENCE TO PRIOR ORDER, PROHIBITING TRANSFERS AND FOR AWARD OF POST-JUDGMENT
ATTORNEY’S FEES FILED BY SIERRA LUMBER & FENCE CO INC.
·
Plaintiff
Sierra Lumber & Fence Company, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Judgment Debtors’
Obedience to Prior Assignment and Turnover Orders, Prohibiting Transfers and
for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED.
·
Judgment
debtors shall obey prior assignment/turnover order and shall turnover all
documentary evidence relating to any obligation owed to judgment debtors
from any third person/entity on or before March 24, 2010.
·
Judgment
debtors are hereby restrained from assigning or otherwise disposing of the
right to payments under the prior assignment order.
·
Judgment
debtors shall additionally pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of
$2,040.00 on or before March 24, 2010.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
3
CIV 478243 MARSHA TILLER VS. FIRST NATIONAL BANK,
ET AL.
MARSHA F TILLER MICHAEL
FIRST NATIONAL BANK, ET
AL. TODD
A. ROBERTS
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE
OF SUMMONS OR MOT TRANSFER FILED BY FIRST NATIONAL BANK
·
This Motion has been continued to
March 19, 2010.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
4
CIV 478498 VIDA VELARDE VS YOLANDA CAYABYAB
VIDA VELARDE HOOSHMAND
LAW GROUP
YOLANDA CAYABYAB TERRILYN
PEREZ
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT FILED BY VIDA VELARDE
·
Plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 664.6 is granted. The court finds that the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. “If the court determines
that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the
motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” Hines
v. Lukes (2008) 167
· The parties did not specify a date by which Defendants were to remove
Plaintiff’s name from all liabilities associated with the Candlewood property
and to satisfy/and or assume the loan.
“If no time is specified for the performance of an act required to be
performed, a reasonable time is allowed.”
(Civil Code Sec. 1657). Further, it is unclear to the Court exactly what
efforts have been made to complete the settlement or what the actual likelihood
of accomplishing the settlement before the April court date set by Judge Dylina
would be. Given that, the passage of time from the settlement date to now seems
more than a reasonable time to complete the matter.
·
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.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
5
CIV 479732 TEDD
TEDD
KENNETH
MOTION FOR CHANGE OF
VENUE.
·
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Change in Venue is DENIED.
Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence that would support a recognized ground
upon which venue can be changed.
·
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.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
6
CIV 481876 WELLS
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. MARIA
ESTELA DE ORDUNA
KENNETH M HORST CHRISTINE
M. BARGANIER
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY KENNETH M HORST AGAINST WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A..
·
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
denied. There is a triable issue of fact
as to whether Wells
·
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.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
7
CIV 483505 AMANDA GONZALEZ VS. GINA WITT, ET AL.
AMANDA GONZALEZ MATTHEW
WERTHEIM
GINA F WITT CHARLES
R ROE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED BY ALLAN D. TORNEROS
·
Defendant’s Motion to File Cross-Complaint is
granted. The Cross-Complaint shall be
filed no later than March 17, 2010.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
8
CIV 483776 ACD INVESTMENTS, LLP VS CARLOS BAIRES,
ET AL.
ACD INVESTMENTS, LLP MAJEED
S. SAMARA
CARLOS BAIRES
DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of
ACD INVESTMENTS, LLP BY ALEJANDRO GARCIA
·
The Demurrer to the Complaint is taken off calendar at the request
of the demurring party.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
9
CIV 484074 LISA FRIEDMAN VS. LS9, INC., ET AL.
LISA FRIEDMAN ALAN F COHEN
LS9, INC. A CORPORATION ANDREW
D CASTRICONE
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION FILED BY LISA FRIEDMAN
·
The motion is granted as to all
requests (16 through 22).
·
As to all Requests, the objections for
vagueness, ambiguity, nonsense, circularity, legal conclusion, completeness,
overbreadth, undue burden, oppressiveness, compoundness, conjunctiveness, and
disjunctiveness lack merit.
·
The term, “managing agent” is a
legal term in Civil Code section 3294(b), defined by the Supreme Court in White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21
Cal.4th 563, 576-77. This is the
definition used in the Request for Admissions. Requests 16 and 17 simply ask
for an admission that Defendants Song and Jansen fall within that category of
persons. Request 18 asks whether any managing agent authorized or ratified the
termination decision.
·
Requests 20, 21, and 22 seek to set
to rest the issue of whether Defendant DS9 communicated certain matters to
employees and directors. The term, “YOU” means Defendant LS9. Since a
corporation can act only through its human conduits, the RFA’s definition
includes persons who could act on LS9’s behalf (officers, directors, and so
forth). Including those persons in the definition does not make it objectionable.
Defendant LS9’s objection for “nonsense, circular, conjunctive, and
disjunctive” are hypertechnical. The objections lack merit when the Requests
are read reasonably and as “you is defined in the Request For Admissions
itself.
·
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is
denied as the request does not comply with the specificity required in CCP
section 2023.040.
·
Defendant shall serve supplemental
responses to Requests 16 through 22, by (1) admitting to the extent the matter
is true, (2) denying to the extent the matter is untrue, and (3)specifying as
to what matter LS9 lacks sufficient information to admit. Code of Civil
Procedure section 2033.220, subd. (b).
·
Verified supplemental responses
shall be served by March 31, 2010.
·
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.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
10
CIV 487656 MELISSA CHAIKA, ET AL VS B.
KASHIAN-SNOW, ET AL
MELISSA CHAIKA FRANK
M. PITRE
BARBARA KASHIAN-SNOW JOHN
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
AND PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED BY MELISSA CHAIKA, DAVID SOBEL
·
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Quash Subpoenas is GRANTED. The
information sought by the subpoenas is so broad as to infringe on Plaintiff’s
right to privacy in her medical records which may be unrelated to the claim or
injuries sued upon. See, Britt v.
Sup.Ct. (
·
Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions is DENIED as the matter is seen by the Court as a
reasonable dispute over discovery.
·
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.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
11
CIV 489801 WELLS
WELLS FARGO BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION STEVEN
B MAINS
JON K FOLAN TERRY
CARLSON
DEMURRER TO
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF FOLAN BY WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
·
Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.’s Demurrer to
Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, as follows:
·
SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the First Cause of Action
for Indemnity. Indemnity is a principle
for shifting responsibility to a third party; an obligation resting on someone to make good a loss or
damage that another party has incurred. Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. v. Pylon, Inc. (1975)
13 Cal.3d 622, 628;
·
SUSTAINED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Second Cause of Action for Apportionment. The doctrine of comparative fault applies in
a situation involving multiple tortfeasors, but Plaintiff has not stated a tort
cause of action. American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1979) 20 Cal.3d
578-598;
·
SUSTAINED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Third Cause of Action for Declaratory
Relief. The availability of another
remedy, such as establishing a defense to Plaintiff’s claims, justifies the
refusal to grant declaratory relief. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fisher (1973) 31
cal.App.3d 391, 395;
·
SUSTAINED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Fourth Cause of Action for Unspecified
Relief. By its own terms, this cause of
action claims nothing.
·
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.
_____________________________________________________________________
9:00
12
CLJ 491085 FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO VS DAVID RABINOVICH
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY
LLC ROBERT
SCOTT KENNARD
DAVID RABINOVICH PRO
PER
MOTION FOR PETITION TO
COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING ARBITRATION FILED BY DAVID
RABINOVICH
·
Defendant David M. Rabinovich’s Motion to Compel
Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant has failed to establish that
Plaintiff refused a demand by him to arbitrate their controversy. Also, the Defendant cited to the Federal
Arbitration Act, but failed to lodge a copy of it pursuant to Rule 3.1113(i) of
the
·
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.
______________________________________________________________________
