May 28, 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, May 18, 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 513856       NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST VS. JAYME

                   FRANCISCO, ET AL.

 

 

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST MICHAEL R. BOULANGER

JAYME FRANCISCO

 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE JUDGMENT BY BLESILDA FRANCISCO

 

 

·         The Motion is DENIED without prejudice for failure to provide proof that it was served on plaintiff in compliance with CCP §1005.  In addition, this motion must be brought before the judicial officer whose order is sought to be set aside. (See, CCP 663(1) and CCP 1008(a)). 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 526642       SOLOMON TSAI, ET AL. VS. BETTY P.P. HSU, ET AL.

 

 

SOLOMON TSAI                          DONALD J PUTTERMAN

BETTY P.P. HSU                        CHARMAINE G. YU

 

 

MOTION FOR SEALING ORDER SEALING EXHIBIT B TO THE REPLY DECLARATION BY SOLOMON TSAI, KAREN LU

 

 

  • The unopposed Motion for Sealing Order Sealing Exhibit B to the Reply Declaration of Solomon Tsai brought by Plaintiff Solomon Tsai  is GRANTED. Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for sealing a record under California Rules of Court Rule 2.550.  The subject exhibit is ordered sealed until further order of the Court.

 

  • 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 529706       STEPHEN DELLINGER VS. PENNINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT

                   POWERS

 

 

STEPHEN DELLINGER                     ALLEN J. CAPELOTO

PENNINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS      ALEXANDRA V. ATENCIO

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT  BY CALTRAIN PENNINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS

 

 

·        Moot.  A 1st Amended Complaint was filed on May 15, 2015.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 530165       ANN HORNBY VS. INTERGRATED PROJECT MANAGMENT, INC.,

                   ET AL.

 

 

ANN HORNBY                            YOSEF PERETZ

INTERGRATED PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC.  EDWARD GARCIA

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS, REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY ANN HORNBY

 

 

  • Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

 

  • Despite Plaintiff's failure to file a separate statement, the court, in the interest of judicial economy has proceeded to make a determination on Plaintiff's motion.

 

  • Having weighed the competing interests, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.  The motion is granted in part limiting the subpoena to payroll records, performance appraisals, training records, commendations and/or written warnings, incident reports including any disciplinary action taken, applications for employment and resume/curriculum vitae.  That portion of the subpoena requesting records regarding attendance, work absences, days taken off, sick leave, medical leave, worker's compensation leave, vacation absence, leaves of absence, copies of time cards and/or timesheets, employee benefit forms, worker's compensation file, including medical records, and all documentation pertaining to disability claims is quashed.

 

  • The requests for sanctions by the parties are DENIED.

 

  • 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 Joseph C Scott, Department 25.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 530374       VULCAN WARBIRDS, INC. VS. THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION,

                   ET AL. 

 

 

VULCAN WARBIRDS INC.                  PHILIP L. GREGORY

THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION               JOHN F. DOMINGUE

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY VULCAN WARBIRDS, INC.

 

 

  • Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections as to the Declaration of Robert Collings are OVERRULED as to Objections Nos. 1 through 76.   Objections to the Declaration of Megan Boyd are OVERRULED as to Nos. 77 through 107.  The  Objections to the  Declaration of Ed Cepuran are OVERRULED as to Nos. 108 through 158.

 

  • The Evidentiary Objections by Defendant Collings to the Declaration of Adrian Hunt are OVERRULED as to Nos. 1 through 20.   The Objections as to the Declaration of Deborah Gunn are OVERRULED as to Nos. 1 through 4.

 

  • Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the Second Cause of Action (Replevin), Third Cause of Action (Claim and Delivery) and Fourth Cause of Action (Declaratory Relief and Specific Performance) is DENIED.  The  Court finds there are triable issues of material fact regarding whether or not the Auction defendants had the authority to sell the subject Tank, and thus whether the subject was actually purchased by Plaintiff.

 

  • Preliminarily, the Court notes that the same 25 Undisputed Material Facts are submitted as to each of the three causes of action at issue in this Motion for Summary Adjudication. Therefore, if there is a triable issue of material as to one of the Undisputed Material Facts, there is a triable issue of material fact as to all three causes of action.

 

  • The Auction Agreement and the Addendum to Auction Agreement have to be read together, in order to ascertain whether the Auction defendant had the authority to sell the Tank; and any conflicts between the two agreements, the Addendum prevails.

 

  • The two agreements read together do not give AA the right to sell the Tank (or any other property) as though AA was Collings’ agent. Paragraph 13.1 of the Auction Agreement conflicts with Paragraph 6.3 of the Addendum to Auction Agreement, and pursuant to Paragraph of 3 of the Addendum to Auction Agreement, the Addendum prevails. The phrase “on mutual agreement of the Parties” cannot be ignored, and the plain meaning is that on mutual agreement of Collings and AA, any treaty (contract) which AA facilitates on any item in the collection, AA will receive a 5% commission.

 

  • The key to the above contracts is that there must be a mutual agreement of the Parties. Here there is no indication of a mutual agreement between Collings and AA with respect to the sale of the Tank. There is no Undisputed Material Fact regarding AA’s authority to “sell” the Tank on behalf of Collings without any further agreement by Collings.

 

  • UMF Nos. 11 & 13  (same as UMF’s Nos. 36, 38, 61 & 63) state that Megan Boyd of RM sent an email to Deborah Gunn about the Tank stating that offers above $2,250,000 would be considered by Rob [Collings]. No. 13 states that Ms. Boyd sent another offer for the Tank for $2,500,000 on July 18, 2014. Collings disputes these UMF’s clearly stating that he never gave authority for the email, had no knowledge of it, and never agreed to accept offers on the Tank after the auction. These alone are sufficient to defeat this entire Motion because they establish that there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether Boyd had authority to sell the Tank. (See UMF’s Nos. 11, 13, 36, 38, 61 & 63; and the Oppositions thereto)

 

  • UMF Nos. 22 & 23 (same as UMF’s Nos. 47, 48, 72 & 73)  basically just state there was an agreement to purchase the Tank for $2,500,000, the funds were wired, and plaintiff owns the Tank (this is supported by paragraphs of 16 – 20 of Ms. Gunns Declaration). In opposition Defendant Collings references paragraphs 15 -33 of his Declaration. This is basically a total of the UMF’s which presents one significant triable issue of material fact having to do with the question of whether the selling Ms. Boyd had authority to make the sale, and whether any sale was thus concluded. (See UMF’s Nos. 22,  23,  47, 48, 72 & 73; and the Oppositions thereto.)

 

  •  UMF No. 19 (same as UMF’s Nos. 44 & 69) states that none of the $2,500,000 has been returned to Plaintiff (Warbirds). This is disputed by Collings stating he learned that Vulcan Warbirds had actually sent $2.5 million to AA and told Mr. Cepuran that the funds should be returned to Vulcan immediately because Collings had not agreed to offer the Tank for sale or accept an offer for it. (Decl. of Rob Collings, par. 29) In the Declaration of Ed Cepuran at paragraph 22 he states that RM has offered to return the $2,500,000 to plaintiff and plaintiff has refused to accept it. Per Court Order plaintiff’s $2,500,000 is being kept in an interest bearing account. (See UMF’s Nos. 19,  44 & 69; and Oppositions thereto.)

 

  • 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

6

CIV 531117       VICTOR M. CATANZARO, ET AL. VS. ROBERT BERMAN

 

 

VICTOR M. CATANZARO                   APRIL S. GLATT

ROBERT BERMAN

 

 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS BY VICTOR M CATANZARO, ET AL.

 

 

  • The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for insufficient notice. Notice of motion must be filed and served at least 16 court days before hearing (April 24, 2015) with an extra five calendar days if served by mail (April 19, 2015). (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 1005, subd. (b) & 1013, subd. (a)).  Plaintiff’s motion was not filed or served until May 1, 2015. Amended Notice of Hearing, which provided the actual date of hearing, was not filed or served until May 6, 2015. The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(f) (requiring hard tabs between exhibits). “Rules of Court have the force of law and are as binding as procedural statutes.” (R.R. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 185, 205.)  The Court directs Counsel to comply with all Rules of Court in all subsequent motions in all matters before the court.

 

  • 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

7

CLJ 164530       GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP.

 

 

GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP.

LORRAINE J. SIMS

 

 

MOTION FOR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT BY GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP

 

 

  • The unopposed Motion to Amend Judgment brought by Plaintiff GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. is GRANTED.  It is hereby ordered that the Judgment as entered herein is amended to read as against Defendant LORRAINE J. SIMS aka LORRAINE O. MOORE aka LORRAINE OLIVER.

 

  • 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


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 REASONABLE POST-JUDGMENT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES BY ROBERT J. MILLER

 

 

·         Continued to June 12, 2015 to coincide with Motion to Tax Costs set on that date.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

9

CLJ 530984       JOSE N. NARVAEZ VS. PEDRO M. PAPIO, JR., ET AL.

 

 

JOSE N. NARVAEZ                       ANDREW H. LANGE

PEDRO M. PAPIO, JR.                   MARIE G QUASHNOCK

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of NARVAEZ BY PEDRO M PAPIO JR , KATHERINE T PAPIO

 

 

·         Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendants shall file and serve their Answer within 10 days of Notice of Entry of Order.  Plaintiff, as the Administrator of the Estate, has standing to sue. Plaintiff, as the representative of the former owner of the property to whom the debt was incurred, has the right to collect the unpaid debt.

 

·         Requests for Judicial Notice by each of the parties are GRANTED.

·          

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the prevailing party is 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 written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:01

10

CLJ 528506       MICHAEL GAO KUMAR, ET AL. VS. TANFORAN PARK SHOPPING CENTER

 

 

MICHAEL GAO KUMAR                     DANIEL R. STERRETT

TANFORAN PARK SHOPPING CENTER         SONIA C. MERIDA

 

 

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND EXPERT DISCLOSURE TO SUBSTITUTE EXPERT

WITNESS, DUE TO MEDICAL UNAVAILABILITY BY TANFORAN PARK SHOPPING CENTER

 

 

·         Appear.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County