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

 

Presiding Judge - Law and Motion Calendar

Judge: Honorable Stephen m. hall

Department 24

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

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 DURHAM

 

 

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 California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Law and Motion Calendar

Judge: Honorable CLIFFORD V. CRETAN

Department 6

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

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 E. ADAMS

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 Cal. App. 4th 1174, 1182. 

 

·       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 AL DE LOYOLA VS KENNETH VARNER, ET AL

 

 

TEDD AL DE LOYOLA                                                               PRO/PER

KENNETH E VARNER                                                               THOMAS P GLASPY

 

 

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 FARGO VS. KENNETH HORST, ET AL.

 

 

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 Fargo was the actual lender / beneficiary with respect to the first deed of trust or was merely the servicing agent.  See Undisputed Material Facts 1-6.

 

·       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 W RANUCCI

 

 

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. (San Diego Unified Port. Dist.) (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.  The subpoenas should be amended to identify records related to each body part claimed to be injured as a result of the accident that is the subject of this lawsuit.

 

·       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 FARGO BANK VS JON K. FOLAN, ET AL.

 

 

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 California Rules of Court.  Judicial notice will be taken of the contents of the case file, including Defendant’s Motion to Compel, pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 452(d) and Plaintiff’s request.

 

·       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.

 

______________________________________________________________________