January 20, 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

 

Monday, January 9, 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:00

Line: 1 - 3 

16-CIV-01701     ED RODEMEYER, et al. vs. SILICON SEGWAY, et al.

 

 

ED RODEMEYER                          WILLIAM C. DRESSER

SILICON SEGWAY                        JEFFREY S. BEHAR

 

 

 

1. DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR MONETARY DAMAGES

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Demurring party failed to file a declaration, as required by Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 430.41(a)(3), showing that the parties met and conferred for the purpose of determining whether an agreement could be reached to resolve the objections to be raised in the Demurrer.  The hearing on the Demurrer is continued until January 30, 2017 at 9 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department so that the parties may properly meet and confer.  The Demurring party is required to file, no later than 7 days prior to the new hearing date, a code-complaint declaration stating either (1) the parties have met and conferred and (a) the parties have resolved the objections raised in the Demurrer, which shall be taken off calendar, or (b) the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the Demurrer, or (2) the party who filed the pleading subject to Demurrer failed to respond to a code-complaint meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.  If the moving party fails to file and serve the declaration demonstrating compliance with requirements of Section 430.41, the Demurrer should be stricken as procedurally improper. 

 

2. Motion to strike PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants’ motion to strike the Complaint’s allegations pertaining to punitive damages are GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the breach of warranty claim.  See Civ. Code Sect. 3294 (authorizing punitive damages for breach of an obligation “not arising from contract ....”)

 

3. Motion to strike PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR MONETARY DAMAGES

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants’ motion to strike the Complaint’s allegations pertaining to punitive damages are GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the tort claims.  Non-intentional torts may in some cases form the basis for punitive damages when the alleged conduct demonstrates a conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. Potter v Firestone & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1004; Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 812-14 (where defendant knew of a specific product defect and knowingly decided not to address the problem). The fact that people have been injured or killed using a product, or that it has been the subject of litigation, does not mean the manufacturer/seller is consciously disregarding the rights and safety of others by continuing to make and sell it.  Here, the Complaint alleges defendants were aware of prior injuries by users, but does not identify with specificity any known problem or alleged defect that defendants consciously ignored, which ultimately led to Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.  Leave to amend is granted to permit Plaintiffs to allege, if they can, specific facts supporting a conclusion that defendants consciously disregarded the rights or safety of others.

 

If the tentative rulings are uncontested, they 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, moving party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s rulings 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: 4

16-UDL-00336     EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC vs. MICHAEL

                    ROTHENBERG, et al.

 

 

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC    DANIEL RILEY

MICHAEL ROTHENBERG

 

 

DEMURRER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant, Michael Rothemberg’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Equity Residential Management, LLC’s Unlawful Detainer Complaint is OVERRULED.  

 

Defendant Michael Rothenberg is ordered to answer the First Amended Complaint within 5 days of Notice of entry of Order.

 

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, prevailing party 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: 5 & 6

CIV535083     ELIZABETH LARROQUE, ET AL. VS FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS

                  SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC.

 

 

FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC.  G. DANIEL NEWLAND

ELIZABETH LARROQUE                    PETER R. DION-KINDEM

 

 

 

5. APPLICATION TO APPEAR AS PRO HAC VICE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Frederick Smith’s Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. in this matter is GRANTED pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. Counsel has paid the $50 fee to the state bar as required by Rule 9.40(e) and the $500 fee now required by the San Mateo County Superior Court pursuant to Govt. Code 70617.  He has met all of the other requirements of CRC 9.40, which are the only requirements to be eligible for admission pro hac vice. 

 

6. APPLICATION TO APPEAR AS PRO HAC VICE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Esther Slater McDonald’s Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. in this matter is GRANTED pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. Counsel has paid the $50 fee to the state bar as required by Rule 9.40(e) and the $500 fee now required by the San Mateo County Superior Court pursuant to Govt. Code 70617.  She has met all of the other requirements of CRC 9.40, which are the only requirements to be eligible for admission pro hac vice. 

 

If the tentative rulings are uncontested, they 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 rulings affords sufficient notice to the parties.

 



9:00

Line: 7

CIV537370     LOUIS A. LIBERTY VS. LIBERTY, OTTO & GUILLEN

 

 

LOUIS A. LIBERTY                      DAVID H. SCHWARTZ

LIBERTY, OTTO & GUILLEN

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff LOUIS A. LIBERTY’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (SAC) is GRANTED.  California’s judicial policy is to exercise discretion liberally to permit amendment of pleadings.  Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 920, 939.  Particularly “[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails.”  Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564.  The exception to this rule is where a previously filed complaint was verified.  In such a case, the amended pleading may not contradict, supplement, or clarify admissions contained in the previously filed verified complaint.

 

The procedural error from Plaintiff’s previous motion (failure to attach a declaration pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1324), heard November 9, 2016, has been cured. Good cause exists for the amendment. Defendants’ arguments against the substance and wording of the amendment are not so persuasive that they justify denying leave to amend. The court finds that the proposed amended complaint does not materially contradict, supplement, or clarify admissions contained in the original verified complaint or in the First Amended Complaint. 

 

Plaintiff shall file and serve his Second Amended Complaint no later than January 17, 2017.

  

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

Line: 8

CIV537925     WASTE SOLUTIONS GROUP VS. DILLARD TRUCKING, ET AL.

 

 

WASTE SOLUTIONS GROUP                 ERIK A. REINERTSON

DILLARD TRUCKING, INC.                CHARLES A. KOSS

 

 

MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Cross- Defendant SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (“District”)’s Motion for Sanctions is STAYED due to Defendant / Cross-Complainant DILLARD TRUCKING, INC. dba DILLARD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (“DES”)’s filing of a Notice of Appeal.  Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 916(a). 

 

The issue of sanctions pursuant to CCP Sec. 128.5 is affected by the judgment and is, therefore, stayed pending appeal. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1707 does not apply as the attorney’s fees requested are neither statutory nor provided for in a contract.

 

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