November 22, 2017
Law & Motion Department 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 JONATHAN E. KARESH

Department 20

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 8C

 

Friday, November 17, 2017

 

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

 you must call (650) 261-5019 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

Lines: 1 & 2

16-CIV-02164 SAN BRUNO OFFICE ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. KIRPAL GREWAL, et al

 

 

SAN BRUNO OFFICE ASSOCIATES, LLC        SHAPIRO, SARAHANN

KIRPAL GREWAL                          JORDAN S. STANZLER

 

 

1. SAGE HUMAN CAPITAL, LLC’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to be relieved of counsel is GRANTED.

 

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 provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel and the client as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20. 

 

 

 

2. KIRPAL GREWAL’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to be relieved of counsel is GRANTED.

 

 

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 provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel and the client as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20. 

 

 



9:00

LineS: 3 & 4

16-CIV-02588     THOMAS SCHAEFER vs. SAGE HUMAN CAPITAL, LLC., et al.

 

 

THOMAS SCHAEFER                        EDWARD W. SMITHERS

KIRPAL GREWAL                          JORDAN S. STANZLER

 

 

3. SAGE HUMAN CAPITAL LLC’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL DEFENDANT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion to be relieved as counsel of record is ordered OFF CALENDAR.  The parties stipulated to arbitrate their dispute and to stay this action pending completion of the arbitration.  Although the stipulation indicates that it does not preclude a party seeking provisional relief, moving party has not established that this motion constitutes provisional relief within the meaning of the stipulation. 

 

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 provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel and the client as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20. 

 

 

4. DEFENDANT KIRPAL GREWAL AKA PAUL GREWAL’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING:      

 

The motion to be relieved as counsel of record is ordered OFF CALENDAR.  The parties stipulated to arbitrate their dispute and to stay this action pending completion of the arbitration.  Although the stipulation indicates that it does not preclude a party seeking provisional relief, moving party has not established that this motion constitutes provisional relief within the meaning of the stipulation. 

 

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 provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel and the client as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20. 

 


 

 

 

9:00

LINES: 5 & 6

16-CIV-02683     JORDAN PHOENIX VS. SAGE HUMAN CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL.

 

 

JORDAN PHOENIX                         RAMSEY HANAFI

SAGE HUMAN CAPITAL, LLC                JORDAN S. STANZLER

 

 

5. PAUL GREWAL’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion to be relieved as counsel of record is ordered OFF CALENDAR.  On March 2, 2017, the court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay this action.  Moving party has not established that the stay has been lifted nor that the court may consider the motion during the pendency of the stay. 

 

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 provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel and the client as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20. 

 

 

 

6. DEFENDANT SAGE HUMAN CAPITAL LLC’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion to be relieved as counsel of record is ordered OFF CALENDAR.  On March 2, 2017, the court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay this action.  Moving party has not established that the stay has been lifted nor that the court may consider the motion during the pendency of the stay. 

 

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 provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel and the client as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20. 

 

 

 



9:00

Line: 7

17-CIV-03345     DAVID A DAILEY vs. CITY OF MENLO PARK, et al.

 

 

DAVID A. DAILEY                        Pro/PER

CITY OF MENLO PARK                     John L. Flegel

 

 

CITY OF MENLO PARK, CHIEF ROBERT JONSEN AND MAYOR KIRSTEN KEITH’S HEARING ON DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants City of Menlo Park’s, Chief Robert Jonsen’s, and Mayor Kirsten Keith’s unopposed Demurrer to Plaintiff David A. Dailey’s July 25, 2017 Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, on multiple grounds.

 

First, the Complaint is uncertain by failing to allege any specific cause(s) of action.  Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 430.10(f).  It describes a number of interactions Plaintiff allegedly had with the Menlo Park Police Department, but these allegations are unclear and unintelligible, because they do not permit Defendants to determine what specific claims are being asserted against them.  Further, allegations such as the police department’s alleged illegal monitoring of Plaintiff lack factual allegations showing a deprivation of a right owed to Plaintiff.  Moreover, as to Defendants Chief Robert Jonsen and Mayor Kirsten Keith, there are no factual allegations whatsoever. 

 

Second, and as a separate grounds for sustaining the Demurrer, the Complaint fails to allege compliance (or exemption from compliance) with the California Tort Claims Act (CTCA), codified in Govt. Code Section 900 et seq., which established certain conditions precedent to the filing of a lawsuit against a public entity, or against a public entity employee acting within the scope of his or her employment.  Briggs v. Lawrence (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 605, 612-13; State v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1237.  Under the CTCA, Plaintiff was required to file a claim for money or damages with the public entity (the City of Menlo Park) no later than one year after accrual of the claim(s).  Govt. Code Sect. 911.2, 945.4.  The statute’s purpose is to provide the public entity an opportunity to investigate and settle claims, if appropriate, in order to avoid the expense of litigation.  Plaintiff’s apparent non-compliance with this requirement appears to bar the asserted damages claims.  See Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (1984) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1076-83 (noting that the CTCA, despite its name, is not limited to tort claims). 

 

Third, to the extent the Complaint seeks damages based on the City and its law enforcement officers allegedly wrongfully subjecting Plaintiff to a 72-hour treatment determination and detention (“5150 hold”), the claim appears barred by Government Code Sections 855.8, 856, which generally provide the City and its employees immunity from liability.  See also Government Code Sect. 815.2(b) (City generally not liable for injury resulting from an act or omission of an officer where the officer would be immune from liability). 

 

Although it appears unlikely Plaintiff can amend the Complaint to properly state a cause of action, the Court grants leave to amend given the Court’s liberal policy in this regard.  Any amended Complaint must be filed within 15 days of service of the notice of order.

 

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice of the documents filed in Case No. 16CIV00814 is GRANTED.  Evid. Code Sect. 452(c)-(d).

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 



9:00

Line: 8

17-CIV-03349     GEORGE P. ESHOO vs. SYED ALI HUSAIN, et al.

 

 

GEORGE P. ESHOO                        Pro/PER

SYED ALI HUSAIN                        ALLEN SPLOPUKO

 

 

DEFENDANT’S HEARING ON DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The demurrer is ordered OFF CALENDAR as moot.  This is because a first amended complaint was filed on November 2, 2017.

 

 

 



9:00

Line: 9

17-civ-03368     DAVID A. DAILEY vs. NILO JON PENAFORT, et al.

 

 

DAVID A. DAILEY                        Pro/PER

NILO JON PENAFORT                      ALBERT L. BOASBERG

 

 

JON AND JENNY PENAFORT’S HEARING ON DEMURRER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The demurrer is ordered OFF CALENDAR as moot.  This is because a first amended complaint was filed on November 7, 2017.

 

 

 



9:00

Line: 10

17-CIV-03917     LORRAINE ALWAISE vs. YVONNE M BERNHARD, et al.

 

 

LORRAINE ALWAISE                       TREVOR A. CAUDLE

YVONNE M. BERNHARD                     BRAD SNYDER

 

 

YVONNE BERNARD AND HERMOSA LEGACY PRODUCTIONS, INC.’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The matter is off calendar because a stipulation has been received stating that the venue will be transferred to Los Angeles County.

 

 

 



9:00

Line: 11

17-CIV-04207     STEPHEN ODEN vs. RODERICK S. RUMLER, et al.

 

 

STEPHEN ODEN                           Pro/PER

RODERICK S. RUMLER                     PRO/PER

 

 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER SERVICE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion of Defendants Roderick S. Rumler and Roderick M. Rumler (“Defendants”) for Order Quashing Service of Summons is CONTINUED to 9:00 a.m. on November 30, 2017 in the Law and Motion Department to give Defendants an opportunity to review Plaintiff’s opposition filed on November 13, 2017 and file and serve a reply.  Although Plaintiff filed and served his opposition late, the court exercises its discretion to still consider Plaintiff’s opposition.  (See Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1300(d).)  However, Plaintiff is cautioned in the future to comply with the filing and service deadlines provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 for motion papers.

 

Defendants may file and serve a reply on or before November 21, 2017.

 

 



9:00

Line: 12

CIV520336     SURFRIDER FOUNDATION VS. MARTINS BEACH LLC ET AL.

 

 

SURFRIDER FOUNDATION                   NIALL P. MCCARTHY

MARTINS BEACH 1, LLC                   JEFFREY E. ESSNER

 

 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES ON APPEAL

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This motion is to be heard by Judge Mallach, the trial judge.  The parties are instructed to contact Judge Mallach’s department at 650-261-5122 to obtain a court date where the motion can be heard.

 

 

 



9:00

Line: 13

CIV533681     KONG-BENG SAW VS. AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES, ET AL.

 

 

KONG-BENG SAW                          MATTHEW K. EDLING

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED             DANIEL F. PYNE

 

 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

TENTATIVE RULING:  

 

The Court needs additional time to complete its research and review of the motion and to review the materials which were submitted on November 14, 2017.  Therefore, on the Court’s own motion the case is continued to December 13, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department. The parties are directed not to file any further supplemental briefing on this motion.

 

 

 

 



9:01

Line: 14

17-UDL-01008     MIDTOWN REALTY, INC. vs. JAVIER FLORES, et al.

 

 

MIDTOWN REALTY, INC.                   ANDREW VAN SLYKE 

JAVIER FLORES                          RENE ORTEGA

 

 

JAVIER FLORES’S HEARING ON DEMURRER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants’ Demurrer is overruled. The basis of Defendants’ demurrer is that the Complaint is defective because the Termination Notice is defective. None of Defendants’ arguments supports a demurrer.

 

1.   The face of the complaint does not show that the prior rental agreement never expired. The agreement expressly states that the term was for only one month. (Complaint, Exhibit A, para. 3.) Defendants’ arguments concerning month-to-month terms relate to tenancy, which is a concept distinct from a rental agreement that relates to the tenancy. Plaintiff’s acceptance of rent after Defendants’ refusal to sign a new agreement does not support demurrer, since it is a contention outside the scope of the complaint. Further, Defendants cite no authority holding that, as a matter of law, acceptance of rent constitutes a renewal of an expired agreement.

 

2.   The Complaint does not show that the Termination Notice is defective. Defendants cite no authority supporting the contention that the Termination Notice must state “what rental agreement expired, when it expired, and what new rental agreement Defendants refused to agree to.” (Opp. at 9:15-19.) Neither the Complaint nor the Termination Notice (Exhibit B) shows that Defendants were given two alternative agreements to sign. 

 

3.   The Complaint does not show that the new agreement was not “substantially identical” to the prior agreement. The question of “substantially identical” is a question of fact that cannot be resolved on demurrer. Further, Plaintiff’s use of the word “obsolete” does not compel a conclusion that the new agreement is not substantially identical to the prior one.

 

4.   The Complaint is not uncertain for purposes of demurrer. (Khoury v. Maly's of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616 (complaint is uncertain if pleading is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her).) 

 

5.   The new rental agreement does not, on its face, fail to comply with law. The late-fee provision cannot be determined on demurrer to be unlawful. The provision concerning permissible occupants does not preclude an agreement from allowing dependent children or immediate family members.

 

Defendants shall file their Answer or Answers no later than November 20, 2017.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 

 


 
9:01

Line: 15

17-UDU-00664     ALLAN & HENRY, INC. vs. MERVIN A MORAN, et al.

 

 

ALLAN & HENRY, INC.                    CLIFFORD R. HORNER

MERVIN A. MORAN                        RAJA DEVINENI

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S motion for summary judgment AGAINST MERVIN A. MORAN

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  CRC 3.1351 provides that, in an unlawful detainer action, a notice of motion for summary judgment must be given in compliance with CCP §§1170.7 and 1010.6 or 1013.  §1170.7 requires a minimum of five days’ notice.  CCP §1010.6 and 1013 require an additional two court days’ notice when service is electronic or by overnight delivery.  Plaintiff has not provided proof that the motion was served in compliance with Rule 3.1351. 

 

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.

 

 


 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County