February 26, 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 RICHARD H. DuBOIS

Department 16

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 7A

 

Friday, February 24, 2017

 

NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL

 

Until further order of the Court, no endorsed-filed “courtesy copy” of pleadings is required to be provided to the Law and Motion Department.

 

 

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.

 

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

 

 

 

Lines: 1 & 2

16-CIV-02080     GEORGY SHUPPE vs. DAVID LIBERMAN, et al.

 

 

DAVID LIBERMAN                         CHRISTOPHER BANKS

GEORGY SHUPPE                          TYLER G. NEWBY

 

 

1. motion to STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Cross-Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of Cross-Complaint is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART:

 

The Cross-Complaint at ¶¶ 25-27 allege that Cross-Defendant placed Cross-Complainants under economic duress, and that he used threats of physical harm being made by Nekrich to pressure Cross-Complainants into signing a number of settlement agreements including the 2010 and 2012 documents alleged in Shuppe’s Complaint.  These allegations include that Cross-Defendant misled Cross-Complainants into thinking he would transfer the assets of the Game, in which Cross-Defendant held a controlling interest.  These allegations provide the backdrop for how Cross-Defendant was ultimately able to gain control over the VC fund.  The motion to strike these allegations are DENIED.

 

Cross-Defendant also seeks to strike a footnote at ¶ 25 of the Cross-Complaint.  This motion is made on the ground that the Cross-Complaint contains irrelevant, false, and improper matter subject to being stricken under Code Civ. Proc. § 436(a).   The court agrees and the motion to strike this footnote is GRANTED.

 

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, Plaintiff 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 Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 

 

2. DEMURRER ON CROSS-COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Cross-Defendant GEORGY SHUPPE’s Demurrer to Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, as follows:

 

  • SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to all causes of action, on the ground that the Cross-Complaint does not identify what law applies to its claims.  Without this information, it cannot be determined whether the claims are sufficiently pled in light of the applicable law.

 

  • Moreover, with respect to the First cause of action for breach of contract, Cross-Complainants must set forth the terms of the contract that establish the obligation at issue.  If the action is based on a written contract, the terms must be set out verbatim in the body of the complaint, or a copy of the contract must be attached as an exhibit to the complaint and incorporated by reference.  FPI Develoment, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 383. 

 

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before March 6, 2017.

 

Cross-Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED.

 

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, Plaintiff 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 Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 



9:00

Line: 3

16-CLJ-01019     DAVID A. DAILEY vs. VALERIE S. LUI, et al.

 

 

DAVID A. DAILEY                        Pro Se

ALLIE LUI                              MIKE BITONDO

 

 

DEMURRER to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is dropped from calendar as Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of the entire action.

 

 



9:00

Line: 4

CIV531946     CONNOR COCHRAN, ET AL. VS. DOES 1-30

 

 

CONNOR COCHRAN                         RICHARD J. MOONEY

PATRICT LAKE                           DAVID HELBRAUN

peter beagle (deponent)                kathleen hunt

 

MOTION FOR ORDER RESTRICTING DISCOVERY

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Third party Peter Beagle’s Motion for Protective Order seeking to preclude and/or limit his deposition is GRANTED-IN-PART.  Mr. Beagle’s testimony appears directly relevant and important to the issues in the case.  Precluding an oral deposition in favor of written questions would be unfairly prejudicial.  By statute, depositions are ordinarily limited to seven hours.  Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 2025.290(a).  Given Mr. Beagle’s age and stated health concerns, the Court will limit the deposition to two non-consecutive days (unless Mr. Beagle chooses to complete it in one day), with each day lasting no more than two hours of on-the-record time.  Thus the deposition shall be limited to no more than four hours of on-the-record time.  Additional time will be permitted only upon a showing of need and a further Court order.  The Court will rely on counsel to coordinate the dates. 

 

Mr. Beagle’s objections to portions of Mr. Cochran’s declaration are OVERRULED.  Mr. Cochran has sufficient personal knowledge to make the challenged statements.  The fact that they may be contradicted by other evidence goes to their credibility, not admissibility. 

 

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

Line: 5

CIV536128     REBECCA KLEIN, ET AL. VS. BRYANT A. TOTH

 

 

REBECCA KLEIN                          DANIEL AZIZI

BRYANT A. TOTH                         RICHARD S. BAUM

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA DIRECTED TO DR. MARIBEL GARCIA

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is dropped from calendar at the request of the moving party.

 

 



9:00

LineS: 6 – 8

CIV538560     MICHELLE NGUYEN VS. VINCENT PLUVINAGE

 

 

 

MICHELLE NGUYEN                        MILLER, REBECCAH B

VINCENT PLUVINAGE                      ronald f. lopez

 

 

6. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND

SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is dropped from calendar as the case has settled.

 

 

7. MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND FURTHER ANSWERS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is dropped from calendar as the case has settled.

 

 

 

8. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO SPECIALLY PREPARED

INTERROGATORIES AND FOR SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is dropped from calendar as the case has settled.

 

 


 

 

 

 


9:00

Line: 9

CLJ534820     BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. VS. EVELYN L.YUN, ET AL.

 

 

BANK OF AMERCA, N.A.                   FLINT C. ZIDE

EVELYN L. YUN                          WILLIAM R. HOPKINS

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PARTIAL SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion is DENIED. Although the funds in Defendant’s account have been frozen, it is undisputed that no funds are in Plaintiff’s possession. It is also unclear whether any funds have left Citibank. It appears from the evidence that the Los Angeles County Sheriff has taken steps to obtain the funds from Citibank, but no evidence demonstrates that those funds have been paid to Plaintiff.

 

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.

 

 



9:01

Line: 10

17-UDL-00096     Parkview Property Management vs. Vanessa Bain

 

 

Parkview Property Management          Paul K. Lee

Vanessa Bain                          DWANA SIMONE BAIN

 

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant VANESSA BAIN’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Defendant failed to file a Proof of Service indicating that her moving papers were served on Plaintiff. 

 

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