August 3, 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

 

Monday, August 3, 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 525068       ALPHA CARD SYSTEMS, LLC. VS. JOLLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 

 

ALPHA CARD SYSTEMS, LLC.              MATTHEW A. HAULK

JOLLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.              ENOCH H. LIANG

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH OR FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION SUBPOENA BY EXCHANGEIT, B.V.

 

 

·         Off calendar at the request of the moving party.

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO EXCHANGEIT, B.V. BY ALPHA CARD SYSTEMS, LLC.

 

 

·         Off calendar at the request of the moving party.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 531460       PETRITA RED VS. FLYERS ENERGY, LLC.

 

 

PETRITA RED                           EDWIN AIWAZIAN

FLYERS ENERGY, LLC                    PRITEE K. THAKARSEY

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES BY FLYERS ENERGY, LLC.

 

 

  • The Motions of Defendant Flyers Entergy, LLC to (1) Compel Further Discovery Responses and (2) to Compel Compliance with the agreement to produce documents are continued to September 16, 2015 at 9:00 AM in the Law and Motion Department.  Plaintiff is directed to obtain a hearing date from the Presiding Judge for complex case designation prior to the September 16, 2015 date.

 

  • 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 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 COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS BY FLYERS ENERGY, LLC.

 

 

·         See above.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 534034       AUCTION.COM, LLC. VS MANICKABABU MUTHU

 

 

AUCTION.COM, LLC.                     ANDREW D. BLUTH

MANICKABABU MUTHU

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BY MANICKABABU  MUTHU

 

 

·         Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED. Defendant has not met his burden to show that the phrase “participate in or procure” (Comp. ¶¶ 11, 31) is “irrelevant, false, or improper matter,” or that the phrase was “not drawn … in conformity with the laws of this state” as required under CCP §§ 435, 436. It is not clear from the pleadings, whether the phrase in question is a non-solicitation clause or crosses over into the realm of a prohibited “no hire” clause.

 

·         Defendant’s request to strike the prayer for attorneys’ fees (Comp., pg. 14, ln. 17) is also DENIED, as the prayer is supported by the terms of the contract.

 

·         Defendant’s Objections to Evidence Submitted by Plaintiff in opposition to Motion to Strike: The objections to Exhibit A to the Bluth Declaration are SUSTAINED. The document is irrelevant because on a motion to strike the defect must appear on the face of the pleading and extraneous evidence is not permitted to be considered. [CCP § 437].

 

·         Defendant is ordered to answer the complaint within 10 days of Notice of Entry of Order.

 

·         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

4

CLJ 211356       MICHELE McGRATH VS. ERIC MARTINEZ

 

 

MICHELE McGRATH                       TIMOTHY S. O'HARA

ERIC MARTINEZ                         PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PART OF ANSWER BY MICHELE McGRATH

                                                 

·         The Unopposed Motion to Strike Part of the Answer by Plaintiff Michele McGrath is GRANTED IN PART pursuant to CCP §436(a), without leave to amend.  Only issues directly relevant to the ultimate question of possession, and which, if established, would result in the tenant’s right to retain possession, may be asserted in defense to an unlawful detainer.  [Barela v. Sup.Ct. (Valdez), (1981) 30 C3d 244, 249; Vella v. Hudgins, (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 255].  Portions of the Answer at issue attempted to interject defenses and claims irrelevant and immaterial to the question of possession.  Accordingly, paragraph 3J on page 3 of Defendant Eric Martinez’s answer filed on July 17, 2015, is stricken.  Paragraph 2 of Attachment 5-e on page 4 of Defendant’s answer filed on July 17, 2015, asserts a valid affirmative defense in that it denies the existence of a landlord/tenant relationship.  The Motion is DENIED as to that portion of the Answer.  Trial is set in one week and allowing Defendant leave to amend would result in delay of the unlawful detainer proceeding.  Further, relief granted via the Motion to Strike does not deprive Defendant of any applicable defenses.  Also, Defendant is not precluded from filing an independent civil action for damages arising during the tenancy.

 

·         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 as required by law and the California Rules of Court. The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County