March 30, 2015
Law & Motions 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 JOSEPH C. SCOTT

Department 25

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2G

 

Friday, March 27, 2015

 

IF YOU INTEND TO APPEAR ON ANY CASE ON THIS CALENDAR YOU MUST DO THE FOLLOWING:

1. YOU MUST CALL (650) 261-5019 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. TO INFORM THE COURT OF YOUR INTENT TO APPEAR.

2. You must give notice before 4:00 P.M. to all parties of your intent to appear pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1308(a)(1).

 

Failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral presentation.

 

N.B. Notifying CourtCall with your intent to appear is not an alternative to notifying the court.  

 

All Counsel are reminded to comply with California Rule of Court 3.1110.  The Court will expect all exhibits to be tabbed accordingly. 

 

    Case                  Title / Nature of Case

9:00

1

CIV 505103       DAVID KAROW VS. CARMEN MENDOZA-MADRIGAL, ET AL.

 

 

DAVID KAROW                           JOSHUA HENDERSON

CARMEN MENDOZA-MADRIGAL               MARK C. RASKOFF

 

 

 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PLAINTIFFS' EXPERTS BY EVENFLOW COMPANY, INC.

 

 

·         The Motion for Protective Order to Limit Number of Plaintiffs’ Experts filed by Defendant EVENFLO COMPANY, INC. is DENIED.  Defendant has not shown either that Plaintiffs’ experts will give duplicative testimony or that Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to make their experts available for deposition.

 

·         Plaintiffs DAVID KAROW and TIFFANY KAROW’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

 

·         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.

 

___________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 506891       ANA PIZARRO, ET AL. VS. CASTLE INSURANCE AGENCY   

                  ET AL.

 

 

ANA PIZARRO                           STEPHEN C. BALL

CASTLE INSURANCE COMPANY              G. DENNIS RODGERS

 

 

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL BY A.A.I.B., INC., ET AL.

 

 

  • The Motion to Dismiss by Defendant A.A.I.B., INC. dba INSURANCE BY CASTLE AGENCY is CONTINUED to June 25, 2015.  Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to file a supplemental declaration updating the Court on GODIA’s corporate status no later than June 15, 2015.  

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 514780       STUART CUMMINGS, ET AL. VS. STEPHEN CUMMINGS, ET AL.

 

 

STUART CUMMINGS                       GLENN M. SMITH

STEPHEN CUMMINGS                      MICHAEL C. JOHNSTON

 

 

MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT BY STUART CUMMINGS, ET AL.

 

 

·         Off calendar at the request of the moving party.

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 517001       GENE CONDON VS. DALAND NISSAN, INC., ET AL.

 

GENE CONDON                           ALEXANDER A. GUILLEN

DALAND NISSAN, INC.                   DAVID R. SIDRAN

 

 

PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD BY GENE CONDON

 

 

  • The Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award by Plaintiff is GRANTED. 

 

·         The Corrected Interim Arbitration Award entered by Judge Bonnie Sabraw (Ret.), Arbitrator, on September 3, 2014, and the Final Award Order Re: Claimant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, entered on November 10, 2014, are hereby confirmed. 

 

·         The Court specifically rejects Defendants DALAND NISSAN, INC.; FEDERATED MUTAL INSURANCE COMPANY and WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES’ position that Judge Sabraw exceeded her powers as arbitrator by issuing the award in two separate orders.  Under both the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. and the California Arbitration Act, Code Civ. Proc. § 1280 et seq., arbitrators must issue awards that include a determination of all the questions submitted.  To discharge that obligation, they may use “a multiple incremental or successive award process as a means, in an appropriate case, of finally deciding all submitted issues.” [Hightower v. Superior Court (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1433-1434]. 

 

·         The Court also rejects Defendants’ request for an order compelling a new arbitration before a three-arbitrator panel convened by a new arbitral forum, the American Arbitration Association.  In support of this request, Defendants cite to the “new arbitration” provision contained in the parties’ Retail Installment Sales Contract, which states in pertinent part:

 

The arbitrator’s award shall be final and binding on all parties, except that in the event the arbitrator’s award for a party is $0 or against a party is in excess of $100,000, or includes an award of injunctive relief against a party, that party may request a new arbitration under the rules of the arbitration organization by a three-arbitrator panel. (See RISC attached to Decl. John Caviglia, Exhibit A, p. 6.)

 

·         The Court notes that during the arbitration, Defendants made the tactical decision not to oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs.  Defendants apparently anticipated that any grant of attorney’s fees and costs would push the dollar amount of the award past the $100,000 threshold to trigger a new arbitration under the above provision.  However, in so seeking a new arbitration, Defendants ignore the specific contractual language stating that they “may” request a new arbitration “under the rules of the arbitration organization by a three arbitrator panel.”  The agreement does not provide for a circumstance where, as here, the arbitration organization selected by the parties does not have a process by which a new arbitration may be had before a three-arbitrator panel.  Moreover, the agreement certainly does not provide for a party to return to Court and request a new arbitration before an entirely new arbitral forum. 

 

·         The Court in B.L. Harbert Intern., LLC v. Hercules Steel Co. (11th Cir. 2006) 441 F.3d 905 stated,

 

“When a party who loses an arbitration assumes a never-say-die attitude and drags the dispute through the court system without an objectively reasonable belief it will prevail, the promise of arbitration is broken.  Arbitration’s allure is dependent upon the arbitrator being the last decision maker in all but the most unusual cases.  The more cases there are, like this one, in which the arbitrator is only the first stop along the way, the less arbitration there will be.  If arbitration is to be a meaningful alternative to litigation, the parties must be able to trust the arbitrator’s decision will be honored soon instead of later.” [ Id. at 913]. 

 

  • The Court therefore confirms Judge Sabraw’s Corrected Interim Award and Final Award in favor of Plaintiff.  As for the ancillary relief requested by Plaintiff, it is inappropriate for the Court to grant this relief as all disputes were to be resolved in arbitration. 

 

  • Petitioner 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 as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 519722       BRENDA BURKS-HERRMANN VS. WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

                   ET AL.

 

 

BRENDA BURKS-HERRMANN                 PAUL S. NESSE

WAL-MART STORES, INC.                 RYAN GILLE

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION PV HOLDING CORP, AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM INC, AVIS BUDGET GROUP

 

 

·         Continued to April 17, 2015 at 9:00a.m. on the Court’s motion.

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 525318       DONA CHANG VS. TARGET CORPORATION

 

 

DONA CHANG                            JENNIFER E. SCOTTO

TARGET CORPORATION                    GERALD DE SIMONE

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY TARGET CORPORATION

 

 

·         Off calendar at the request of the moving party.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 526238       MILDRED POLINGER, ET AL. VS. DIGNITY HEALTH, ET AL.

 

 

MILDRED POLINGER                      IRA LESHIN

DIGNITY HEALTH                        CYRUS A. TABARI

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE THE ENTIRE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DUC MARCEL NGUYEN

 

 

  • The Motion to Strike the Entire Second Amended Complaint by Defendant Duc Marcel Nguyen is DENIED.  The Court grants Plaintiffs’ request for relief for its error in failing to timely file the Second Amended Complaint, under CCP § 473(b).

 

  • Prevailing party 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 as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DUC MARCEL NGUYEN

 

 

  • The Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint by Defendant Duc Marcel Nguyen is OVERRULED.  The Second Amended Complaint is sufficiently clear to inform Defendant Nguyen of the claims against him.

 

  • Prevailing party 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 as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

___________________________________________________________________


9:00

8

CIV 529072       FOUR GATES CAPITAL, LLC. VS. AKHENATON HASSAN SMITH,            

                 ET AL,

 

 

FOUR GATES CAPITAL, LLC.              KEVIN S. EIKENBERRY

AKHENATON HASSAN SMITH                RICHARD L. BECKMAN

 

 

MOTION ORDER SEVERING 9-4-2014 CROSSCOMPLAINTS FOR RESTITUTION AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST; AND 1-27-2015 SECOND AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD AND CONTRUCTIVE TRUST AND RESTITUTION; OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR ORDER BIFURCATING TRIAL BY FOUR GATES CAPITAL, LLC

 

 

·         The Court admonishes Plaintiff’s counsel Kevin Eikenberry for violating CRC Rules 2.109 [pages must be numbered].

 

·         The Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff is not entitled to Entry of Judgment (see below). Severing the cross-complaints is not warranted.

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall 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 written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

 

 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BY FOUR GATES CAPITAL, LLC.

 

 

·         The Court admonishes Plaintiff’s counsel Kevin Eikenberry for noncompliance with CRC Rules 2.109 [pages must be numbered], 3.1113(d) [two violations: Opening memorandum not to exceed 15 pages and Reply memorandum not to exceed 10 pages], 3.1113(e) [failure to obtain leave of court to file excessively long opening and Reply opening memoranda], 3.1113(f) [memorandum exceeding 10 pages must include table of contents and table of authorities, as to opening and reply memoranda]. The Court exercises its discretion to treat Plaintiff’s noncompliant Moving and Reply Memoranda as “late filed papers.” (See CRC Rule 3.1113(g).

 

·         The Motion is DENIED as to Defendants Akhenaton Hassan Smith, Bank of America, Nationstar Mortgage, Aurora Commercial Corp., MERS, Milestone Financial, and Polymathic Properties.

 

·         A Plaintiff’s Motion for judgment on the pleadings may attack an entire Answer or specific affirmative defenses. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 438, subd. (c)(2).) Plaintiff’s motion does not specify which affirmative defenses are subject of this motion. (Notice of Motion at 1:19-25.) The motion is deemed to be against all defenses.

 

·         As with a Demurrer, a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings admits the truth of matters asserted in the pleading being attacked. A moving Plaintiff admits that any material allegation that has been denied is untrue. “The moving party admits the untruth of his own allegations insofar as they have been controverted, and all such averments must be disregarded whether there is a direct and specific denial or an indirect denial by virtue of affirmative allegations of a contrary state of facts.” (Barasch v. Epstein (1957) 147 Cal. App. 2d 439, 443; see also Osborne v. Abels (1939) 30 Cal. App. 2d 729, 731, 87 P.2d 404, 405 (1939) [“party moving for judgment on the pleadings also admits the untruth of his own allegations in so far as they have been controverted”].)(See also Reese v. Gross (1934) 2 Cal. App. 2d 384, 385-86 [Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in quiet title action denied; “In view of  . . . the general denial thereof by defendants,” motion for judgment on the pleadings is improper, where answer raises material issue].)

 

·         The Answers by Defendants Smith and Milestone Financial deny multiple material allegations of the Complaint. Smith denies that Plaintiff is the owner of the subject property, that the Grant Deed is void, allegations in paragraph 23 regarding Deed of Trust, that Defendant has no interest in the property, and that Defendant’s adverse claim is invalid. (See 2nd Amended Answer at 2:12 – 3:14.) Milestone Financial denies material allegations in paragraphs 7, 14, 15, 17, 20-22, 24, 28, 34, and 37. (See Answer of Milestone at pp. 2-6.)  Since the motion admits the correctness of a defendant’s denials, the motion concedes that contested material allegations in the complaint are untrue. The motion, therefore, fails to demonstrate that the Complaint states a cause of action.

 

·         In addition, a Plaintiff moving for judgment on the pleadings must show the answer fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any defense to the complaint. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).) Defendant Smith’s Answer asserts sixteen affirmative defenses; Bank of America alleges 24 defenses; Nationstar Aurora, and MERS allege 20 defenses; Milestone Financial alleges 11 defenses, and Polymathic Properties alleges 20 defenses. Plaintiff’s Motion addresses only Defendant Smith’s defense of collateral estoppel/res judicata. The Motion fails to address any of his other affirmative defenses, or any affirmative defense of other Defendants. Having failed to dispose of all defenses, the Motion must be denied as to Smith, Bank of America, Nationstar, Aurora, MERS, Milestone Financial, and Polymathic Properties.

 

·         The Motion is DENIED as to Defendants Rachel Higgins, Rowena Curiel, Prlap, Inc., and Financial Dimensions, Inc. A Motion for judgment on the pleadings attacks a Defendant’s Answer. According to Plaintiff, these defendants have defaulted have been dismissed. No Answer is on file to attack.

 

·         Except for the above-mentioned Defendants, the motion is GRANTED.  

  

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall 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 written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

9

CIV 529240       CACH, LLC. VS. WARREN A. SATTLER

 

 

CACH, LLC.                            NADER SABAWI

WARREN A. SATTLER                     IAN CHOWDHURY

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY WARREN A. SATTLER

 

 

  • Defendant Sattler’s unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Document No. 1 is GRANTED.  The Defendant’s request for the documents relating to the transfer, purchase or assignment of the alleged debt is not overly broad, burdensome. It is directly relevant to the action. Nor does it request privileged information. These documents form the very basis for Plaintiff’s action against this Defendant.

 

  • Defendant is ordered to further respond to the subject production request, without objection, no later than April 15, 2015.

 

  • 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.

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

10

CIV 531460       PETRITA RED, ET AL. VS. FLYERS ENERGY, LLC.

 

 

PETRITA RED                           EDWIN AIWAZIAN

FLYERS ENERGY, LLC.                   PRITEE K. THAKARSEY

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BY FLYERS ENERGY, L

 

·         The Request for Judicial Notice by Defendant Flyers Energy, LLC.  is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code §452(d), (h).

 

  • The Motion to Strike the Complaint by Defendant Flyers Energy, LLC. is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. The complaint fails to allege any ultimate facts showing that questions common to the class predominate over questions affecting individual putative class members or that this Plaintiff would have claims typical of the class or that she would be an adequate class representative.

 

  • 1st Cause of Action [unpaid overtime]: Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient ultimate facts to state her first cause of action for failure to pay overtime. Plaintiff uses statutory language and summarily alleges that employees worked in excess of the required hours without receiving overtime pay.

 

  • 2nd and 3rd Causes of Action [unpaid meal period premiums and unpaid rest period premiums]: Paragraphs 56-66 of the complaint are merely a restatement of the legal elements required to state meal and rest period claims under Labor Code 226.7. Plaintiff has not alleged the requisite specific facts to state a cause of action for violation of this code section.

 

  • 4th Cause of Action [unpaid minimum wages]: Plaintiff has alleged no facts other than that defendant failed to pay minimum wages to plaintiff and other class members. Complaint ¶ 78. This is far short of meeting the pleading standard.

 

  • 5th Cause of Action [final wages not timely paid]: This cause of action fails for lack of supporting facts. Plaintiff asserts that defendant intentionally and willfully failed to pay the other class members who are no longer employed by defendant their wages, earned an unpaid within 72 hours of leaving employment in violation of Labor Code 201 and 202. Complaint ¶ 84. Plaintiff does not make a single allegation she was not paid her wages timely upon termination.

 

  • 6th Cause of Action [wages not timely paid during employment]: This cause of action fails as a matter of law because there is no private right of action for violation of Labor Code 204. See e.g. See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 10 Cal App 4th 889, 905.

 

  • 7th Cause of Action [noncompliant wage statements]: This cause of action fails as it is time barred by the applicable one year statute of limitations. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions (2007) 40 Cal 4th 1094, 1118, n. 16. Her claims also fail because she does not allege any facts showing injury.

 

  • 8th Cause of Action [failure to keep requisite payroll records]: This cause of action fails as Labor Code 1174 does not provide for a private right of action. [Reynolds v. Bement (2003) 107 Cal App 4th 738].

 

  • 9th Cause of Action [unreimbursed business expenses]: This cause of action also fails for lack of sufficient factual allegations. Plaintiff has provided no factual allegations but merely alleges that plaintiff and other class members incurred necessary business-related expenses that were not fully reimbursed. Complaint ¶ 108. There are no factual allegations related to what business expenses were incurred, why the expenses were necessary and how defendant was aware of the expenses.

 

·         10th Cause of Action [violation of B&P Code 17200: This cause of action fails as it is derivative of the factually unsupported wage claims and is lacking any independent facts in support. It fails for the same factual deficiencies of the underlying causes of action, discussed above upon which this cause of action entirely depends and from which it derives. See Daily v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. (2013) 214 Cal App 4th 974, 1002.

 

·         Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint, should she elect to do so, no later than 15 days from receipt of notice of entry of order.

 

·         Moving party 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 as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF PETRITA RED BY FLYERS ENERGY, LLC

·         See above.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

11

CIV 532520       GEORGE SCHOEN VS. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

 

 

GEORGE SCHOEN                         JACOB HARKER

NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY       KENDALL A LAYNE

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED BY NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

 

 

·         The Demurrer to the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint by Defendants New Hampshire Insurance Company and Public Storage, Inc. is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

 

  • 1st Cause of Action - breach of contract against New Hampshire Insurance Company: Plaintiff does not allege whether the subject contract is written, oral or implied from conduct. [Otworth v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company (1985) 166 Cal App 3d 452, 458-59]. The cause of action also fails to state a claim for breach of contract. In California, insurance policies must be written. [Insurance Code §380]. Plaintiff’s failure to attach copy of the contract or certificate of insurance is a fatal defect that requires the court to sustain the demurrer to both the first cause of action and the second cause of action. [Gilmore v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co. (1880) 55 Cal 123, 124]. Further, plaintiff has only allege the existence of the contract of insurance and the most conclusory terms.

 

  • 2nd Cause of Action - bad faith breach of contract against New Hampshire Insurance Company: Plaintiff does not allege whether the subject contract is written, oral or implied from conduct. [Otworth v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company (1985) 166 Cal App 3d 452, 458-59]. The cause of action also fails to state a claim for breach of contract. In California, insurance policies must be written. [Insurance Code §380]. Plaintiff’s failure to attach copy of the contract or certificate of insurance is a fatal defect that requires the court to sustain the demurrer to both the first cause of action and the second cause of action. [Gilmore v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co. (1880) 55 Cal 123, 124]. Further, plaintiff has only alleged the existence of the contract of insurance in the most conclusory terms.

 

  • 3rd Cause of Action - breach of contract against Public Storage: Plaintiff does not allege whether the subject contract is written, oral or implied from conduct. [Otworth v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company (1985) 166 Cal App 3d 452, 458-59]. The cause of action also fails to state a claim for breach of contract. In California, to be governed by the provisions of the California Self-Service Storage Facility Act, an agreement for the rental of self service storage space must be in writing and contain certain provisions mandated by the statute.[ Business & Professions Code §.21712]. Further, plaintiff has only alleged the existence of the contract in the most conclusory terms.

 

  • 4th Cause of Action - negligence against Public Storage: Plaintiff has failed to allege the basic requirements of negligence, particularly duty.

 

  • Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint, should he elect to do so, no later than 15 days from service of notice of entry of order.

 

  • Demurring party 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 as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

12

CLJ 531958       FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA VS. KATHY GRENIER

 

 

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA          JAMES MACLEOD

KATHY GRENIER

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH BY KATHY GRENIER

 

 

·         Defendant’s Motion to Quash is GRANTED.  The proof of service indicates the summons and complaint were left with an adult male at Defendant’s residence.  Defendant has offered evidence sufficient to rebut any presumption of service arising from this proof of service.

 

·         Moving party 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 as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County