May 24, 2016
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 donald j. ayoob

Department 27

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 7B

 

Friday, May 20, 2016

 

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

9:00

1

CIV 530857       LORRAINE SMITH VS. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

 

 

LORRAINE SMITH                        FRANK P. SARRO

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO                   MONALI S. SHETH

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL AND INDEPENDENT MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLTFF LORRAINE SMITH BY COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

 

The unopposed motion to compel an independent mental examination of plaintiff is GRANTED.  Good cause exists for the examination as the allegations of the First Amended Complaint, plaintiff’s discovery responses and her deposition testimony indicate that her mental state is at issue. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding agreeable dates for the examination; said examination to be completed on or before June 3, 2016.

 

Plaintiff shall provide a formal order for the Court’s signature which specifies that Dr. Winkel shall perform the examination, and setting forth the time, place, manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope and nature of the exam as set out in the moving papers.  CCP §2032.320(d).

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 533737       PURCELL-MURRAY CO. INC. VS. KIM VIBE-PETERSEN, ET AL.

 

 

PURCELL-MURRAY CO. INC.               DARIUS OGLOZA

KIM VIBE-PETERSEN

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT WITH ADDITIONAL CAUSES OF ACTION BY SCANOMAT A/S

 

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of sufficient proof of service.  The POS states that the motion was served electronically.  CCP §1010.6 and CRC 2.251 permit electronic service where a party has agreed to accept such service.   The court’s record does not reflect the filing of a notice of plaintiff’s agreement to accept electronic service.

 

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

3

CIV 534561    MALTBY ELECTRIC, SUPPLY CO., INC. VS. TJ WARD &

                ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

 

 

MALTBY ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., INC.           ALAN L. BRODKIN

TJ WARD & ASSOCIATES CONTRACTI

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT BY WILLIAM CRIST

 

 

The motion is GRANTED.  Defendant shall file the cross-complaint no later than May 25, 2016.

 

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

4

CIV 536047       MT. DIABLO INVESTMENT GROUP LLC VS. SOUTH BAY REAL

                  ESTATE COMMERCE

 

MT. DIABLO INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC      MILLA L LVOVICH

SOUTH BAY REAL ESTATE COMMERCE        MARK A RUSHIN

 

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES OF PLTFF TO DEFT'S FIRST SET OF, ETC. BY SOUTH BAY REAL ESTATE COMMERCE GROUP LLP

 

The Court admonishes Defendants’ counsel Mark Rushin for violating CRC Rule 3.1110(f) (requiring hard tabs between exhibits) regarding the Declaration of Mark Rushin, which includes four exhibits across 80 non-tabbed pages. Counsel is directed to comply with all Rules of Court in all future filings.

 

The motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Set One is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff served Supplemental Responses on April 15, 2016. The court notes also that the moving papers fail to demonstrate clearly a good faith attempt to resolve the matters concerning Set One informally (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (b) [declaration setting forth meet and confer]), since Defendants’ initial meet-and-confer letter of March 24, 2016, is omitted from the motion.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, 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 ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES OF PLTFF TO DEFT'S SECOND SET OF SPECIAL, ETC. BY SOUTH BAY REAL ESTATE COMMERCE GROUP LLP

 

The Court admonishes Defendants’ counsel Mark Rushin for violating CRC Rule 3.1110(f) (requiring hard tabs between exhibits) regarding the Declaration of Mark Rushin, which includes four exhibits across 150 non-tabbed pages. Counsel is directed to comply with all Rules of Court in all future filings.

 

The motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Set One is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff served Supplemental Responses on April 15, 2016.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, 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 AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES BY MT. DIABLO INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC

 

The Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED against Defendant South Bay Real Estate Commerce Group and Defendant George Cresson. Both Defendants’ responses, served April 1, 2016, fail to comply with Code of Civ. Proc. 2031.210, subd. (a) [party shall respond “separately to each item or category”].) Defendants’ one-paragraph blanket response to all document requests also does not constitute compliance or even substantial compliance. Having failed to serve a timely response, both Defendants have waived all objections.

 

Plaintiff’s motion is only to compel further written responses. (See Notice of Motion.) To the extent Plaintiff requests an order compelling production of documents, the request is DENIED. The request is not stated in the Notice of Motion. Further, the request lacks merit, since neither Defendant stated that he or it would comply with any request. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.320, subd. (a) [order compelling compliance possible only if party fails to permit inspection “in accordance with that party's statement of compliance”].) 

 

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. The Notice of Motion does not include a motion for sanctions. Further, the Notice fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.400 [Notice must identify each party or attorney against whom a sanction is sought].)

 

Defendants’ opposing request for sanctions is DENIED. 

 

Defendant South Bay Real Estate Commerce and Defendant George Cresson shall each serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) without objections. Each Defendant’s response shall comply with all requirements of Sections 2031.210 through 2031.250. Each Defendant shall serve verified responses no later than June 3, 2016. This deadline may be extended only by written agreement between the parties or by court order upon a showing of good cause.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, 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

5

CIV 536397       AZUCENA P. PALOMINOS, ET AL. VS. NAZARETH CLASSIC

                   CARE COMMUNITY,  INC.

 

AZUCENA P. PALOMINOS                  DANIEL J. MULLER

NAZARETH CLASSIC CARE COMMUNITY, INC.

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM PLTAINTIFF’S FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES BY NAZARETH CLASSIC CARE COMMUNITY, INC.

 

A First Amended Complaint having been filed on May 9, 2016, the motion is MOOT.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 536714       LISA DIPLACIDO VS. EDELIO GOMEZ, ET AL.

 

 

LISA DIPLACIDO                        DEBRA F. BOGAARDS

EDELIO GOMEZ

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES BY EDELIO GOMEZ, ET AL.

 

Defendants Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Claim for Punitive Damages is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint contains sufficient facts to show malice, oppression, fraud, or a conscious disregard for the safety of others.

 

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court will take judicial notice of the Second Amended Complaint, however it cannot take judicial notice of the police incident report because it is hearsay, subject to dispute, and not “capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” Evid. Code § 452(h).

 

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 Donald J. Ayoob, Department 27.

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CLJ 212264       ACCESS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS FUND TWO, LP VS. RAOUL R.

                   L. SIMPSON, ET AL.

 

 

ACCESS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS FUND TWO, LP   TODD ROTHBARD

RAOUL R. L. SIMPSON

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT (UNLAWFUL DETAINER) of ACCESS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS FUND TWO, LP BY VIVIAN CHENG

 

The court notes that on April 22, 2016, Fat Lam filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings based on his bankruptcy filing on that date and on May 12, 2016, Lewis Gan filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings based upon his bankruptcy filing on May 11. Notwithstanding the Stay of judicial proceedings against the judgment debtors Lam and Gan, the Court will address the merits of the Demurrer filed by Defendant Cheng; the Court finds that the origination of bankruptcy proceedings by Lam and Gan stay these unlawful detainer proceedings only as to actions or proceedings against them individually, and not as to any of the other numerous individual defendants who have asserted their own individual claims of right to possession of the premises which are the subject of this litigation.

 

Defendant Cheng’s demurrer is OVERRULED as wholly without merit and the Court finds it was filed solely for purposes of delay. The complaint clearly states a cause of action for unlawful detainer. It alleges the plaintiff’s ownership of the premises and right to possession, it alleges service of a notice to quit and defendants continued possession. Defendant Cheng shall file an Answer to the complaint on or before May 26, 2016.

 

If Defendant Cheng wishes to contest this tentative ruling, she shall appear in person at the hearing on her demurrer in order to be heard.

 

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.

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Special Set Calendar

Judge: Honorable JOSEPH C. SCOTT

Department 25

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2G

 

Friday, May 20, 2016

 

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

3. YOU MUST CALL (650) 261-5125 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. TO INFORM THE COURT OF YOUR INTENT TO APPEAR.

4. 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 534539       LAWRENCE P. PURCELL VS. ERIC CARL DEBODE, ET AL.

 

 

LAWRENCE P. PURCELL                   PHILIP L. GREGORY

ERIC CARL DEBODE                      RICHARD J. VAZNAUGH

 

 

MOTION TO ENFORCE THIS COURT'S ORDER COMPELLING LAWRENCE P. PURCELL TO COMPLETE HIS EMPLOYMENT DEPOSITION AND FOR SANCTIONS

 

 

  • The Motion to Enforce Court Order Compelling Plaintiff LAWRENCE PURCELL to Complete Employment Deposition by Defendants/Cross-Complainants ERIC DEBODE and ALICE LINSMEIER is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to appear for a fourth day of deposition no later than June 10, 2016.  Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.290(b)(4).

 

  • Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

 

 

  • Moving party is directed to prepare a written order…

 

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL: (1) THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT ERIC DEBODE AND (2) A PRIVILEGE LOG THAT COMPLIES WITH CALIFORNIA LAW

 

 

  • Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant LAWRENCE P. PURCELL’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant ERIC DEBODE by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant PURCELL is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to appear for deposition over three days, not necessarily consecutively,  no later than June 10, 2016.

 

 

  • Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Privilege Log, the parties are directed to appear.

 

 

  • The parties’ requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County