April 16, 2014
Law & Motions Tentative Rulings
  • Law and Motion Department Tentative Ruling Line:  (650) 363-1882
  • 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 LISA A. NOVAK

Department 13

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2C

 

APRIL 11, 2014

 

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

1.      YOU MUST CALL (650) 363-1882 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.  

 

    Case                  Title / Nature of Case

9:00

1

CIV 496031    ARCHSTONE VS. BEUTLER CORPORATION, ET AL.

 

 

ARCHSTONE                             ANDREW E. SAXON

BEUTLER CORPORATION                   CHRISTIAN P. LUCIA

 

 

(JOINT) MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT FILED BY SACRAMENTO A-1 DOOR, SACRAMENTO A-1 DOOR, SACRAMENTO A-1 DOOR, CHARLES D. GARDEMEYER, CHARLES D. GARDEMEYER GENERAL CONTRACTOR

 

·         Plaintiff’s joinder is GRANTED.

 

·         Motion for good faith settlement on behalf of Sacramento A-1 Door dba A-1 Door and Building Solutions and Charles D. Gardemeyer General Contractor is GRANTED. 

 

·         The supplemental papers filed since the hearing on February 3, 2014, coupled with the original moving papers, provide sufficient information to conclude that the settlement is in good faith and complies with the factors set forth Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488.

 

·         Moving parties have now allocated the settlement proceeds to two of the claimed defects set forth in the report prepared by Aquatech Consultancy and there is no objection to this evidence or opinions to the contrary.  The amount of settlement paid by Sacramento A-1 Door and Charles D. Gardemeyer shall be allocated to the following defects set forth in Aquatech’s report:  1) uncontrolled water at balcony door threshold flashing pans and 2) uncontrolled water at balcony closet door threshold pans.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 514059    LORENZO SALHI, ET AL. VS. PNY TECHNOLOGIES, ET AL.

 

 

LORENZO SALHI                         BRYAN M. PAYNE

PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                GILBERT J. TSAI

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of SALHI FILED BY PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., GADI COHEN, PHILIP BERKOWITZ

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY PLAINTIFF SALHI AS TO DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.

 

 

  • The Court admonishes Defendants’ counsel for failure to comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(g) [evidence exceeding 25 pages must be separately bound and include table of contents].)

 

  • The Court admonishes Defendants’ counsel for failure to comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(d) [each issue in Separate Statement to be listed separately]. Defendants’ Statement combines two causes of action for every set of facts, when not all facts applied to each cause of action. In addition, Defendants’ attack on breach of contract involved four distinct issues (Points I, II, III) (See also Fraud [four distinct misrepresentations]; Labor Code [four distinct claims]). The Court acknowledges that the violation was with good intentions. (Reply P&A at 2:4-13). However, Rule 3.1350(d) actually creates expediency.  “Separate statements are required not to satisfy a sadistic urge to torment lawyers, but rather . . . to permit trial courts to expeditiously review complex motions for SAI and summary judgment to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are disputed.” (United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 335.)

 

  • Failure to comply with the Rules of Court does not affect the Court’s ruling on this motion.

 

  • Plaintiffs’ Objection Number 1 is overruled, as Plaintiff attached the document in question to the complaint thereby waiving any objection.

 

  • Plaintiffs’ Objections to all matters which it indicates were not listed in the Separate Statement are SUSTAINED.  In the event that Defendant’s response is that the matter need not be included in the Separate Statement because it is only background, it would then be irrelevant.  As such, Plaintiff’s objection No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 19 are sustained.

 

  • Plaintiff’s Objection No. 6 is OVERRULED, as the statement is that of a party opponent and sufficiently authenticated.

 

  • Plaintiff’s Objection No. 12 to the [matter under seal?]

 

  • Plaintiff’s Objection No. 13 is OVERRUELD as it is sufficiently authenticated as a business record of PNY through the Grigoletti declaration.

 

  • Plaintiff’s Objection No. 1618, 19    [matter under seal?]

 

  • Plaintiffs’ Objections 20 through 34 are overruled. Statements in a Memorandum of Points and Authorities are not evidence.

 

  • Defendants’ Objections 1 through 33 are overruled. Defendants have objected to Plaintiff’s additional Undisputed Facts, which are not evidence. The Court cannot rule on objections to the evidence supporting those facts, because Defendants do not identify which portions of evidence or testimony are objectionable. (See CRC Rule 3.1354(b)(3) [objection to evidence must “[q]uote or set forth the objectionable statement”].)

 

  • The voluminous nature of both motions for summary judgment filed respectively by each party necessitates a continuance of the hearing.   The rulings noted herein will be incorporated into the Court’s ultimate tentative ruling. As an aside, Defendant’s failure to comply with applicable rules and its inclusion of seemingly irrelevant material  in no small way contributed to an undue consumption of time by the Court.  As such, the hearings will be continued until April 23, at 9:00 a.m.  The court is mindful of the May 19th trial date but acts within its discretion to hear the matter within 30 days of trial.

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 521495    DAVID BOYD VS. WILLIAM BOYD

 

DAVID BOYD                            MICHAEL D. LIBERTY

WILLIAM BOYD                          ANNE MARIE MURPHY

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of BOYD FILED BY WILLIAM BOYD

 

  • Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff’s Complaint and Defendant’s Answer were duly filed in this action, but not as to the truth of any matters asserted in those pleadings.

 

  • Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections are SUSTAINED as to Objection No. 41; McCarthy Decl. Paragraph 12; and Request for Judicial Notice Exhibit 2; and OVERRULED as to the remainder.

 

  • Defendant’s Evidentiary Objections are SUSTAINED as to Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Additional Material Facts Nos. 19, 20, 21, 96, 97, 106, 107, 108, 111, 122, 123, and 124; and OVERRULED as to the remainder.

 

The Court rules on the motion for summary judgment as follows:

 

  • Defendant WILLIAM BOYD’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED on the ground that there are multiple triable issues of material fact precluding summary judgment of the entire action.  Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c), as is evidenced by the findings herein.

 

  • Defendant’s Motion, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:

 

GRANTED as to the Eighth cause of action for constructive trust. 

 

·         A constructive trust, albeit a remedy, does not constitute a separate cause of action.  Monastra v. Konica Business Machines, U.S.A., Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1628.  It is appropriate to dismiss this cause of action on a motion for summary adjudication, since the motion “necessarily includes a test of the sufficiency of the complaint.”  American Airlines, Inc. v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 1110, 1117. 

 

GRANTED as to the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh causes of action for common counts.  

 

  • Plaintiffs’ Ninth cause of action for money had and received fails, because the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff for money the defendant received for the use and benefit of the plaintiff.  Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460.  Here, Defendant did not receive money from a third party for the use and benefit of Plaintiff.  Defendant borrowed money from Plaintiff for his own personal and business use, which is uncontroverted by the evidence.  

 

  • Plaintiff’s Tenth cause of action for account stated fails because there is no agreed-upon statement of indebtedness between Plaintiff and Defendant.  H. Russell Taylor’s Fire Prevention Service, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Corp. (1971) 99 Cal.App.3d 711, 726-727.  While Plaintiff asserts that he has a number of documents evidencing the various loans made to Defendant over the years, it is undisputed that there is no written document reflecting an agreement between the parties settling the amount actually owed.  (UMF No. 42, 43.)

 

  • Similarly, the Eleventh cause of action for open book account fails for lack of a credible written record.  Mere entry records from a check ledger, such as that proffered by Plaintiff, is insufficient.  Tillson v. Peters (1940) 41 Cal.App.2d 671, 679.  (Umf No. 42, 43.).

_____________________________________________________________________

 

DENIED as to the statute of limitations and laches defense asserted against all causes of action.   

 

  • Whether or not a claim is outside the limitations period is usually an issue for the trier of fact. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 810.  A court may grant summary judgment/adjudication if the claim is outside the statute of limitations, but not if there is a dispute as to when the statute of limitations began running.  Clearly, triable issues of fact exist as to when that limitations period began, with Plaintiff asserting a tolling based upon fraud.   While Defendant argues that the applicable statutes of limitation operate to bar Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff is arguing circumstances for tolling and estoppel.  The fact that Defendant acted as Plaintiff’s attorney also brings up questions of whether all statutes of limitation should be tolled, as Defendant owed a fiduciary duty of full disclosure to Plaintiff.  Strasberg v. Odyssey Group, Inc. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 906, 917.  The material facts in dispute include the following:

 

  • Defendant asserts that Plaintiff could have demanded repayment of the loans at any time, yet failed to do so.  However, Plaintiff testified that although he made numerous requests for repayment over the years, Defendant always had one reason or another not to repay, and would promise that as soon as he got the money, he would make good on the loans.  (UMF Nos. 11, 18.)  Further, prior to lending any money to Defendant, Plaintiff always made Defendant promise to repay the amounts due, which Defendant promised.  (Plaintiff’s AMF Nos. 8, 13-15.)

 

  • Defendant asserts that over the years, he has had the financial means to purchase a home in Hillsborough, and has been earning a salary of $200,000 per year since at least 2007.  Plaintiff has testified, however, that Defendant constantly told him that he lacked the financial means to repay the loans, and Plaintiff did not know how much Defendant was making.  Since the 1980s, Defendant has constantly been in need of money, and borrowed prolifically from Plaintiff as well as their parents.  (UMF No. 31.) 

 

  • Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has been his attorney since 1978, which Defendant disputes is a material fact.  While Defendant concedes having represented Plaintiff in a specific set of circumstances, he disputes that he maintained a continuous attorney-client relationship with Plaintiff extending beyond those specific matters such that a fiduciary duty arose.  (Plaintiff’s AMF Nos. 3-7.)

 

DENIED as to Plaintiff’s Fourth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and Seventh cause of action for constructive fraud. 

 

  • As set forth above, there is a triable issue of material fact regarding whether Defendant did owe Plaintiff a fiduciary duty, seeing as Defendant has acted as Plaintiff’s attorney for over thirty years.  (Plaintiff’s AMF Nos. 3-7.)

 

  • DENIED to the extent that Defendant seeks summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims relating to the amounts allegedly lent to Epicure Imports.  First, this argument is procedurally flawed as Defendant failed to include it in his Notice of Motion of issues to be summarily adjudicated, as required by the Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(b).  Further, while Defendant asserts that the Epicure transactions were “investments” made into the business, Plaintiff claims that they were personal loans made to Defendant, thus raising a triable issue of material fact.  Plaintiff claims that Defendant had him sign a Subordination Agreement merely as a formality, while at the same time promising and giving his personal guarantee that Defendant would be responsible for repaying the money lent to Epicure.  (UMF No. 25.) 

 

  • If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. The moving party 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

4

CIV 523937    JOHN A. COLE VS. MICHAEL A. JURICICH, ET AL.

 

 

JOHN A. COLE                          MICHAEL B. ALLEN

MICHAEL A. JURICICH

 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY MICHAEL A. JURICICH

 

  • Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted.  While the court will take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, including the truth of results reached, it may not take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements contained in those documents.

 

  • Plaintiff's objection to Exhibit B to the declaration of Michael Juricich is sustained.

 

  • Defendant Michael Juricich’s motion to set aside default pursuant to CCP §473(b) and (d) and quash service of summons is denied.  The return of a registered process server upon process establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return. Evid. Code, §647;  American Exp. Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390.  Plaintiff presented a declaration from his process server that personal service had been made.  The burden then shifted to defendant to rebut that presumption.  Defendant failed to produce admissible evidence that he was not served.

 

  • The entry of default ousts the court of jurisdiction to consider any motion other than a motion for relief from default, for it terminates a defendant's rights to take any further affirmative steps in the litigation until either its default is set aside or a default judgment is entered.   ‘A defendant against whom a default has been entered is out of court and is not entitled to take any further steps in the cause affecting plaintiff's right of action; he cannot thereafter, until such default is set aside in a proper proceeding, file pleadings or move for a new trial or demand notice of subsequent proceedings.‘ [Citation] Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-86.  As the motion for default is denied, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider any other motion.

 

  • 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 Lisa A. Novak, Department 13.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 524652    WILLIAM ROBERT SUTTON, ET AL. VS. LOUIS ALLEN LIBERTY

 

 

WILLIAM ROBERT SUTTON                 PRO/PER

LOUIS ALLEN LIBERTY

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of SUTTON BY LOUIS ALLEN LIBERTY, LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES

 

·         Defendants’ Demurrer as to Defendant Louis Allen Liberty is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the 1st and 2nd causes of action.  Plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts to recover on an alter ego theory.  See Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 415

 

Defendants’ Demurrer to the 1st and 2nd Causes of Action of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is OVERRULED as indicated herein:

 

·         1st C/A – Breach of Contract: Plaintiffs’ Complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for breach of contract.  Further, Plaintiffs set out sufficient facts such that this cause of action may fall within the two year statute of limitations for oral contracts under CCP § 339.  The possibility that the cause of action may fall within the statute of limitations is enough to survive demurrer.  See Childs v. State of California (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 155, 160-161.  Defendants’ argument for uncertainty under CCP § 430.10(f) fails because Plaintiffs’ cause of action for breach of contract is sufficiently clear and Plaintiffs waived this argument by  failing to include it in their Memorandum of Points and Authorities as required by CRC § 3.1113(a).

 

·         2nd C/A – Fraud: Plaintiffs’ Complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for fraud under CCP § 430.10(e).  Plaintiffs specified that Defendants knew or should have known that fee-splitting between lawyers and non-lawyers is illegal and Plaintiffs justifiably relied on that representation.  Further, Plaintiffs pled their 2nd cause of action with the greater specificity required by causes of action for fraud.  See Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (1991) 2 C.A.4th 153, 157.   Defendants’ argument for uncertainty under CCP § 430.10(f) fails because Plaintiffs’ cause of action for fraud is sufficiently clear and Plaintiffs waived this argument by  failing to include it in their Memorandum of Points and Authorities as required by CRC § 3.1113(a).

 

·         Defendants’ Demurrer as to Plaintiff National Automobile Safety Council, Inc. is OVERRULED as a substitution of attorney was filed April 9, 2014.  Plaintiff is now represented by counsel. with leave to amend as to the 1st and 2nd causes of action

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 524779    ISRAEL ARTEAGA VS. ROQUE ARTEAGA, JR., ET AL.

 

 

ISRAEL ARTEAGA                        MATTHEW D. ZUMSTEIN

ROQUE ARTEAGA, JR.                    MICHAEL P. QUINLIVAN

 

 

DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of ARTEAGA BY JOSEPH W. MCCARTHY

 

 

·         Demurrer of Joseph W. McCarthy to the third cause of action in the first amended complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as this cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 

 

·         The allegations in paragraph 28 and 41 of the first amended complaint that plaintiff and McCarthy entered into an attorney-client relationship is a legal conclusion and not a statement of fact.  There are no facts to establish the existence or creation of an attorney-client relationship.  Furthermore, plaintiff has insufficiently alleged how his alleged damages were proximately caused by McCarthy’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty, particularly with plaintiff’s statements that an unidentified economic relationship was disrupted.  (See paragraph 44 of first amended complaint.)

 

  • If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. The moving party 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. 

 

·         Plaintiff shall file and serve an amended pleading in conformity with this court’s ruling within ten days of service of notice of ruling.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 525519    DARRYL KEITH PHILLIPS VS. FELICIA BYARS, ET AL.

 

 

DARRYL KEITH PHILLIPS                 PRO/PER

FELICIA BYARS                         JOHN L. FLEGEL

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of PHILLIPS BY MELISSA MCKOWAN, GWEN LUONG

 

 

  • Defendants Loung and McKowan’s demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.  As to defendant Loung, the allegations referring to her fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and are uncertain and Loung has immunity for her reporting activities pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code §15634(a).  Defendant McKowan has immunity for the actions complained of pursuant to Gov. Code §§ 820.2 and 821.6.

 

  • 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 Lisa A. Novak, Department 13.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

8

CLJ 208281    QUINLAN K. EDDY VS. ROBERT J. MILLER

 

 

QUINLAN K. EDDY                       BENJAMIN ELIOT KAPLAN

ROBERT J. MILLER                      DEREK J. STAFFORD

 

 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER SEALING RECORDS CONTAINING PRIVILEGED MATERIAL BY ROBERT J. MILLER

 

·         Defendant’s motion to seal records is DENIED.  CRC 2.550(c ) provides that unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.  Evidence Code section 1119 provides that all communications by and between participants in the course of a mediation shall remain confidential. The declarations in Plaintiff’s opposition to the previous motion for attorney’s fees contain no confidential communications between the parties, but rather a recitation of fact that Defendant apparently walked out of the mediation prior to its scheduled conclusion.  That conduct is not a “confidential communication” protected under EC 1119. 

 

 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING AN UNDERTAKING TO STAY ENFORCEMENT PENDING APPEAL BY ROBERT J. MILLER

 

·         The motion for an undertaking is denied.  Defendant has not offered evidence sufficient to show good cause for an undertaking.    There is already an automatic stay in place as a matter of law.  CCP §916(a) provides that, except as provided in §§917.1 to 917.9, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from.  §917.9(a)(3) on which Defendant relies, gives the court the discretion to require an undertaking.  However, Defendant has not established good cause for the court to do so.  The purpose of a bond is to protect the judgment from becoming uncollectible while it is subject to appellate review.  Grant v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 929, 934.  Here, Defendant has not shown that the judgment for attorney’s fees is somehow at risk.  In Grant, a judgment creditor sought to increase the size of a bond posted as security.  The court held that he must demonstrate a real, substantial possibility, not just speculation, that the current bond was insufficient.  Although Grant is factually distinct from this matter, its reasoning is equally applicable herein.

 

  • If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. The moving party 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

CLJ 208511    MOAB INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC VS. MORRIS S. MAXWELL

 

 

MOAB INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC            BRENDA CRUZ KEITH

MORRIS S. MAXWELL                     DOUGLAS E. KLEIN

 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT BY MORRIS S MAXWELL, SHAWN R. MAXWELL, SHERYL MOORE, JUSTIN BROWN

 

 

  • Defendants Morris Maxwell, Shawn Maxwell, Justin Brown and Sheryl Moore’s Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Notice of Appeal filed by defendants on March 4, 2014 has deprived the court of jurisdiction. CCP §916 provides that the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment appealed from.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

10

CLJ 208961    CRYSTAL SPRINGS ASSOCIATES VS. YOSRA AL ZABEN

 

 

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ASSOCIATES            JUSTIN BREWER

YOSRA D.A. AL ZABEN                   LYLE W. JOHNSON

 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND TO STAY EXECUTION BY YOSRA D.A. AL ZABEN

 

  • Defendant Yosra Al Zaben’s Unopposed Motion to Set Aside the Judgment is GRANTED. Defendant Yosra Al Zaben’s Unopposed Motion to File an Amended Answer is GRANTED. Defendant Yosra Al Zaben’s Unopposed Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Judgment is MOOT given the Court’s Ruling on the Motion to Set Aside the Judgment.

 

  • The moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the court's tentative ruling for the court's signature, pursuant to CRC 3.1312, and to provide notice thereof to all counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  A copy of the order is to be delivered directly to Judge Novak in Department 13.

_____________________________________________________________________

 


In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Presiding Judge Law and Motion Calendar

Judge: HONORABLE ROBERT D. FOILES

Department 21

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2J

 

APRIL 11, 2014

 

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

 you must call (650) 363-4813 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

1

CIV 518105    SANDEE OSBORN VS. COSTCO WHOLESALE

 

 

SANDEE OSBORN                         BARBARA A. LAWLESS

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION          ANTHONY J. MUSANTE

 

 

MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE BY COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

 

 

 

·         Appear. 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:10 PM

 

© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County