June 28, 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, June 24, 2016

 

 

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 496994       BEALS MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. VS. LIFE

                   TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

 

 

384 FOSTER CTY BOULEVARD PARTNERS     P. KURT PETERSON

APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS, LLC               ADAM M. TSCHOP

 

 

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BY 384 FOSTER CTY BOULEVARD PARTNERS

 

 

 

Pursuant to Court order on June 22, 2016, and with the concurrence of both parties in open court, the Motion is continued for hearing to June 29, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department. _____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 524391       ELIZABETH WHITE VS. JEFFERSON UNION COUNTY SCHOOL

                   DISTRICT

 

 

ELIZABETH WHITE                       MICHAEL FLYNN

JEFFERSON UNION COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT JOHN A. SHUPE

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY

JEFFERSON UNION COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

 

A notice of settlement having been filed on May 6, 2016, the matter is off calendar.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 528860       ROSEMARY N. CHUKWUDEBE VS. CHRISTOPHER PIRRONE

 

 

ROSEMARY N. CHUDWUDEBE                PRO/PER

CHRISTOPHER PIRRONE                   CHRISTOPHER PIRRONE

 

 

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS OR CONTEMPT AGAINST ROSEMARY N. CHUKWUDEBE BY A.O.E. LAW ASSOCIATES, INC.

 

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS OR CONTEMPT AGAINST ROSEMARY N. CHUKWUDEBE BY STEVE S GOHARI, ET AL.

 

It appears to the court that plaintiff appeared for and proceeded with her deposition on June 17, 2016 as previously ordered.  If so, per the court’s prior order, the continued hearing on June 24 is taken off calendar.  If any party believes that the hearing should not be taken off calendar, they shall so notify the court by 4:30 PM on June 23, 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 533113       SABRINA CLARK VS. MICHAEL MAK, ET AL.

 

 

SABRINA CLARK                         WILLIAM BOWEN

MICHAEL MAK                           IAN KELLEY

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY MICHAEL MAK, ET AL.

 

Defendants’ Michael Mak, Rhett Whitehill and BOS, Inc. Special Motion to Strike the 1st Cause of Action is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The First Cause of Action for Fraud is based on the protected speech of the Defendants and is subject to Anti-SLAPP statutes and the litigation privilege. Additionally, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits.

 

DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF CLARK BY MICHAEL MAK, ET AL.

 

Defendants’ Michael Mak, Rhett Whitehill and BOS, Inc. Demurrer to the 3rd Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied covenant is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The statute of limitations for breach of a non-written agreement under CCP §339 acts as a bar to Plaintiff’s recovery and is grounds for sustaining Defendants’ demurrer.

 

Defendants’ Michael Mak, Rhett Whitehill and BOS, Inc. Demurrer to the 4th Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The statute of limitations under CCP §335.1 acts as a bar to Plaintiff’s recovery and is grounds for sustaining Defendants’ demurrer.

 

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 Donald J. Ayoob, Department 27.

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 533220       EDRIC E.A. GREENE VS. SECURITY PUBLIC STORAGE

 

 

EDRIC E.A. GREENE                     PRO/PER

SECURITY PUBLIC STORAGE               MARK HEISEY

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES REQUEST FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES BY SECURITY PUBLIC STORAGE

 

Defendant’s Special Motion to Strike pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 is GRANTED.

 

Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(b)(1) provides: “A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”

 

A defendant specially moving to strike has the burden to show that the conduct underlying a cause of action arises from protected activity. City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 79.  Once this has been established, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim. Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 958, 965. To do so, the plaintiff must show that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence is credited.  Id.

 

In this case, Defendant’s filing of the small claims lawsuit against Plaintiff is an “act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the US or California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” CCP § 425.16(e)(1) includes as protected: “any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law.” Therefore, the small claims action itself, and the preliminary notices to it, are protected activity by the anti-SLAPP statute. Therefore, the Defendant shifted the burden to the Plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claims stated in the Complaint.

 

The Plaintiff failed to file any opposition, therefore he has not shown the required probability of prevailing on the Complaint. In addition, Plaintiff would have to overcome the affirmative defense of the litigation privilege, at Civil Code § 47. The Plaintiff’s burden includes the burden of negating potential defenses. Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 825 (disapproved on other grounds). 

 

Under the litigation privilege, conduct in connection with matters related to a lawsuit are privileged. Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187, 1191. This privilege also applies to pre-litigation communications involving the subject matter of the ultimate litigation. Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1058. The purpose of the litigation privilege “is to afford litigants the utmost freedom of access to courts without fear of being harassed subsequently by derivative tort actions.” Rubin, supra, 4 Cal. 4th at 1194. The Plaintiff failed to file any opposition, therefore has not defeated the affirmative defense of the litigation privilege.

 

Because the motion is granted, Defendant is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $540. CCP §425.16(c)(1).

 

Judgment shall be entered for Defendant.

 

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 Donald J. Ayoob, Department 27.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 534547     FATIMA TEHRANCHI, ET AL. VS. ONE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ET AL.

 

 

FATIMA TEHRANCHI                      PRO/PER

ONE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.               STEVEN R. BLACKBURN

 

 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR SEQUOIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. BY SUSAN ZEME

 

Counsel having complied with the Court’s prior order, the Motion to Withdraw was GRANTED on June 22, 2016. Accordingly, the matter is off calendar.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 535073       OCEAN VIEW BIBLE FELLOWSHIP VS. MARVIN DAVIS, ET AL.

 

 

OCEAN VIEW BIBLE FELLOWSHIP           EDWARD W. SMITHERS

MARVIN DAVIS                          PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION OF OCEAN VIEW BIBLE FELLOWSHIP FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY OCEAN VIEW BIBLE FELLOWSHIP

 

Plaintiff Ocean View Bible Fellowship’s objections to evidence are SUSTAINED as follows:

 

The court SUSTAINS the objections to the declaration of Maureka Davis, [p.1:21 – p.2: 6] based on lack of foundation on lack of personal knowledge. Evidence Code §§403(a) and 702(a).

 

The court SUSTAINS the objections to the declaration of Stephen Valerio, [p. 5:18 – 6:12] based on lack of foundation and on lack of personal knowledge. Evidence Code §§403(a) and 702(a).

 

The court SUSTAINS the objections to the declaration of Marvin Davis as to the attached by-laws as unauthenticated.

 

The court SUSTAINS the objection to any response by defendant True Bible Baptist Church. Defendant is a Corporation that cannot appear in court because it is unrepresented by counsel. CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal App 4th 1141, 1145-46. Additionally, terminating sanctions were also recently granted as to defendant True Bible Baptist Church.

 

Plaintiff Ocean View Bible Fellowship’S Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to the 3rd cause of action for Quiet Title and to the 4th cause of action for Rescission of Grant Deed.

 

As to the 3rd cause of action for Quiet Title, the Plaintiff has met its initial burden under CCP §437c(p)(1) of showing that there is no defense to the cause of action. The facts established by Plaintiff evidence its title to the subject property [See material facts 1, 2]; that the June 2, 2015 grant deed by which Defendants Marvin Davis and Stephen Valerio purported to transfer title to the subject real property was legally invalid as not having complied with the constitution or bylaws of Plaintff [material facts 4, 5]. Plaintiff has further established that individual Defendants Marvin Davis, Maureka Davis and Stephen Valerio do not have a viable affirmative defense that would establish their title to the subject property. The Articles of Incorporation of plaintiff prohibit a transfer of property from a nonprofit religious corporation to a church member [material fact 6]. Such a transfer is also barred by Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3). As to defendant True Bible Baptist Church, any attempt to establish an affirmative defense of ownership is barred both procedurally and substantively. Procedurally, defendant is a Corporation, not represented by counsel and cannot appear in pro per. In addition, on June 9, 2016, this Court granted terminating sanctions against defendant True Bible Baptist Church and ordered their answer stricken and its default entered. Substantively, plaintiff has established that the Ocean View congregation never voted to transfer the property to defendant [material fact 4]. Absent a noticed meeting and a vote in accordance with the articles of incorporation, Constitution and bylaws of plaintiff any transfer to defendant is void.

 

As to the 4th cause of action for Rescission of Grant Deed, the Plaintiff has met its initial burden under CCP §437c(p)(1) of showing that there is no defense to the action. The material facts establish that the June 2, 2015 grant deed by which Defendants Marvin Davis and Stephen Valerio purported to transfer title to the subject real property was legally invalid as not having complied with the constitution or bylaws of Plaintff. [Material facts 4, 5.]

 

The burden then shifts to the Defendants to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or defense thereto. Defendants have not met that burden.  Defendants have not filed a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion for summary adjudication as required under CRC 3.1350(e)(1). Defendants have filed a document entitled “Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication and Motion In Limine. Defendants have also failed to file a separate statement in opposition to the motion as required under CRC 3.1350(e)(2).

 

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 Donald J. Ayoob, Department 27.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

8

CIV 537173       HENRY ALMENDAREZ VS. JOHN NICHOLAS SU

 

 

HENRY ALMENDAREZ                      OWILI K. EISON

JOHN NICHOLAS SU

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH SUMMONS FILED BY JOHN NICHOLAS SU

 

A dismissal having been entered on June 6, 2016, the matter is off calendar as MOOT.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

9

CLJ 536277       CITIBANK, N.A VS. SHOUXUAN ZHANG

 

 

CITIBANK, N.A.                        ANTHONY DIPIERO

SHOUXUAN ZHANG                        PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER THAT MATTERS IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF TRUTH OF FACTS BE ADMITTED BY CITIBANK, N.A.

 

The unopposed Motion by Plaintiff for truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission be deemed admitted is GRANTED.  The genuineness of each document and the truth of all matters specified in Request for Admissions, Set One, dated November 11, 2015, are hereby deemed admitted.

 

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 Donald J. Ayoob, Department 27.

____________________________________________________________________________


9:00

10

CLJ 212481       ESSEX MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. SUZANNE M. RELANDER

 

 

ESSEX MANAGEMENT CORPORATION             ASHLEY E. KLEIN

SUZANNE M. RELANDER                      PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION (1) TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (2) DEEM ADMISSIONS AND (3) REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

 

The Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2030.290(b). Defendant, Suzanne Relander, shall provide verified responses, without objection, to the Form Interrogatories Set One and comply with Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents Set One within 5 days of service of the notice of entry of the order.

 

The Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Deem Matters Admitted is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2033.280. All matters set forth in the Request for Admissions [Set 1], dated June 2, 2016 are hereby deemed admitted. 

 

Defendant, Suzanne Relander is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $410.00 to Plaintiff within 5 days of service of the 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 Donald J. Ayoob, Department 27.

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

 

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, June 24, 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

2:00

1

PRO 123107      THE ESTATE OF GARY J. SAVAGE

 

 

GARY J. SAVAGE                       

SAMANTHA CHU                          MICHEAL E. PITTS  

 

MOTION TO TAX OR STIKE COSTS BY SAMANTHA CHU

 

·         Appear.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:45 PM

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County