May 25, 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, May 22, 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 463382       JENNIFER MOORE VS. RICHARD HATFIELD, ET AL.

 

 

JENNIFER MAE ROSENBLUM                JAMES H. SEYMOUR

SANDHILL VENTURE GROUP                MERRILL G. EMERICK

 

 

DEMURRER TO THIRD Amended COMPLAINT BY MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,

 

 

 

  • The Request for Judicial Notice by Defendant MERS is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code §§452 (d), (h) and 453.

 

  • The Demurrer by Defendant MERS to the Plaintiff’s 3rd Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts as to MERS to state a cause of action for quiet title.

 

  • 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

2

CIV 519064       JACKIEJO LOPEZ, ET AL. VS. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

                   DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

 

 

JACKIEJO LOPEZ                           GREGORY S. WALSTON

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL.

 

 

  • Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In each of the Undisputed Material Facts set forth for the four causes of action No. 19 states:  “Plaintiffs have failed to produce evidence, or demonstrate that they can produce evidence, that supports any cause of action as to Defendants Michael Massoni, Jason Rosenberg, Joni Lee, Susan Kennedy, Norman Fragoso, and Marty Van Duyn.”

 

·         The Court has just ruled that Defendants did not respond properly to certain discovery propounded by Plaintiff. Admittedly, Plaintiff did not seek relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h), however, the Court cannot ignore its discovery ruling made today. Defendants cannot proceed with an Undisputed Material Fact that implies that Plaintiff received proper discovery responses when in fact that is not the case.

 

·         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.

 

 

 

MOTION AND DELCARATION TO OPPOSE DENFENDAT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ET, AL. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR IN THE ALTERATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY JACKIEJO LOPEZ, ET AL.                         

 

  • Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.  Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient notice of the motion as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(a).

 

  • 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.

 

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY JACKIEJO LOPEZ

 

 

  • Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery is GRANTED/DENIED as follows:

·         Regarding the Interrogatory responses by Chief Michael Massoni,

The Motion is GRANTED as to Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12 and 15; the Motion is DENIED as to Nos. 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 14;

 

·         Regarding the Interrogatory responses by Susan Kennedy,The Motion is GRANTED as to Nos. 2, 6, 9, 12 and 15; the Motion is DENIED as to Nos. 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16;

 

·         Regarding the Interrogatory responses by Jason Rosenberg, The Motion is GRANTED as to Nos. 1, 2, 6, 9, 12 and 15; and Motion is DENIED as to Nos. 3-5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16;

·          Concerning the Request for Admission responses by Officer Joshua Cabillo, The Motion is GRANTED as to Nos. 4, 5, 11 and 15; the Motion is DENIED as to Nos. 1-3, 6-10, 12-14, 16 and 17.

 

  • Defendants shall serve further responses to the above discovery on or before May 29, 2015.

 

  • Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

 

  • 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.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 522584       BRANDY HUNT VS. DALAND NISSAN, INC., ET AL.

 

 

BRANDY HUNT                           KEVIN FAULK

DALAND NISSAN, INC.                   DAVID R. SIDRAN

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY DALAND NISSAN, INC, ET AL.

 

 

·         Moot.  The Court has been informed that the case has settled.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 526642       SOLOMON TSAI, ET AL. VS. BETTY P.P. HSU, ET AL.

 

 

SOLOMON TSAI                          DONALD J. PUTTERMAN

BETTY P.P. HSU                        CHARMAINE G. YU

 

 

MOTION FOR SEALING ORDER BY SOLOMON TSAI, ET AL.

 

 

·         Plaintiff SOLOMON TSAI’s unopposed Motion to Seal is GRANTED.  The Court finds that an overriding interest exists in protecting the confidentiality of Plaintiff’s confidential financial information pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550.  This overriding interest supports sealing Exhibit I to the Declaration of Skye D. Langs, filed in support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, as well as any references made thereto in Defendants’ Opposition. 

 

·         Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Exhibit I of the Langs Declaration and Defendants’ Opposition be filed under seal.  Defendants are ordered to file a redacted version of their Opposition.

 

·         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.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 527856       LANCE H. PEREZ VS. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

 

 

LANCE H. PEREZ                        VINCE M. VERDE

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.                 SHARON STEWART

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE AS TO DEFENDANT RESURGENT MORTGAGE SERVICING AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS  BY LANCE H. PEREZ

 

  • Continued to June 15, 2015 at 9:00a.m. by stipulation of the parties.

 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 530749       NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. VS.

                   RICHARD ERNEST CALDERON, ET AL.

 

 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC.   STEVEN D. CRIBB

RICHARD ERNEST CALDERON               HOWARD OLSEN

 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY RICHARD ERNEST CALDERON

 

 

 

  • The Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment by Defendant Richard Ernest Calderon, individually and dba RC Construction is DENIED.  Defendant chose to represent himself in this action. Pro per litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys. [Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal 4th 975, 985]. Plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment and gave the defendant  75 days notice of the hearing.  He failed to respond. Defendant admits that he received the motion but did not realize he had to file an opposition to the motion but did not familiarize himself with applicable law or retain an attorney until after the motion was granted.  His declaration in regard to this does not create a showing of excusable neglect sufficient to warrant vacating the summary judgment pursuant to CCP §473(b).

 

  • Note.  The Defendant spends a significant portion of his motion is spent arguing that the amount that was determined to be owed by him by the State Compensation Insurance Fund is invalid due to an improper audit. At this juncture, these arguments are not persuasive. The State Compensation Insurance Fund determined the amount that was owed. Defendant, apparently, did not challenge that determination or utilize any appeals procedure with the State Compensation Insurance Fund. In the absence of any challenge to the award, the State Compensation Insurance Fund sold the judgment to plaintiff Northern California Collection Service, Inc. As a result, this case is a simple collection action. Defendant’s attempts to litigate the award obtained by the State Compensation Insurance Fund are not available in this action. In fact, the State Compensation Insurance Fund is not even a party to this action.

 

  • 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

7

CIV 532269       I. WILLIAM WISER VS. S&T PROPERTIES, ET AL.

 

 

I WILLIAM WISER                       MATTHEW LOUIS KARPINSKI

S&T PROPERTIES

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRST Amended COMPLAINT BY VALI HASHEMIAN, ET AL.

 

 

  • The Demurrer by Defendants Hashemian and Mahmood Azad is OVERRULED. Defendants’ demurrer is facially defective, in that it does not identify which causes of action are subject to demurrer, and the ground for demurrer as to each cause of action. (CRC Rule 3.1320(a) [“Each ground of demurrer must be in a separate paragraph and must state whether it applies to the entire complaint, cross-complaint, or answer, or to specified causes of action or defenses”].)

 

  • The Court assumes that Defendants demur on the ground of uncertainty. (Moving  P&A at 3:3-5 [“cannot ascertain which causes of action are plead against them and thus the First Amended Complaint fails due to uncertainty”].) The demurrer lacks merit because the complaint specifically identifies Demurring Defendants Hashemian, S&T, and Mahmood Azad in the following causes of action:

     1.   “Collateral Estoppel” (Hashemian, S&T, and Azad; FAC ¶35.)

     2.   Quiet Title (S&T and Azad, ¶ 41)

     3.   Quiet Title (S&T and Azad, ¶ 54)

     4.   Conspiracy to commit fraud (S&T and Azad, ¶ 59)

     5.   Interference with Contract   (S&T and Azad, ¶ 71)

     6.   Rescission (S&T, Azad ¶ 75)

     8.   Breach of Fiduciary Duty (S&T, ¶ 87)

     11.  Fraud (S&T, Azad  99).

     12.  Trespass (S&T, Azad ¶ 110)

 

  • Defendants S & T PROPERTIES, VALI HASHEMIAN, and Mahmood Azad shall file and serve Answers no later than June 10, 2015.

 

  • If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendants 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

8

CIV 533137       GREGORY SCOTT VS. SUTTER HEALTH MILLS PENNISULA

                    HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL.

 

 

GREGORY SCOTT                         KELECHI CHARLES EMEZIEM

SUTTER HEALTH MILLS PENNISULA HEALTH SERVICES  MICHAEL J. GARVIN

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT BY SUTTER HEALTH MILLS PENNISULA HEALTH SERVICES

 

 

·         The demurrer by Mills Peninsula Health Services to the 2nd cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.  Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action against Mills Peninsula Health Services since the 2nd cause of action only alleged the negligence of Dr. Guenin and plaintiff failed to allege the elements of respondeat superior.

 

·         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 to 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.

 

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BY SUTTER HEALTH MILLS PENNISULA HEALTH SERVICES

 

 

·         Moot in light of the ruling on the above demurrer.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

9

CIV 520682       FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, LLC. VS. DOMINIQUE M.

                   WASHINGTON

 

 

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, LLC.       MATTHEW LOUIS KARPINSKI

DOMINIQUE M. WASHINGTON               SCOTT J. HYMAN

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION

 

 

·         Continued to August 27, 2015 at 9:00a.m. by mutual request.  The parties are directed to file updated Case Management Statements.

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County