October 19, 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 Lisa A. novak

Department 13

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2C

 

Monday, October 16, 2017

 

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

1. YOU MUST CALL (650) 261-5113 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

Line: 1

16-CIV-02993     JAVIER ALCALA vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

                     TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS), et al.

 

 

JAVIER ALCALA                          Pro/per

ca department of transportation         layle i. labagh

 

 

DEFENDANT’T MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is moot as plaintiff filed a request for dismissal with prejudice on october 11, 2017.

 



9:00

Line: 2

16-CLJ-00608    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs. CARLOS A ALVARADO, SR, et al

 

 

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.                  FLINT C. ZIDE

CARLOS A. ALVARADO, JR.                PRO/PER

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The matter is moot.  a dismissal was filed September 28, 2017.

 



9:00

Line: 3

16-CLJ-00614    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs. CARLOS A. ALVARADO, SR., et al.

 

 

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.                  FLINT C. ZIDE

CARLOS A. ALVARADO, JR.                PRO/PER

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The matter is moot.  a dismissal was filed September 28, 2017.

 



9:00

Line: 4

17-CIV-01939     MOHK YANG PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, et al. vs. JAMES M.

                    KARDITZAS, et al.

 

 

MOHK YANG PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH           W. DAN LEE

JAMES M. KARDITZAS                     Pro/PER

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE EACH DEFENDANT’S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

 

Plaintiffs MOHK YANG PRESBYTARIAN CHURCH and PAUL NA’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

 

 Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 446(a), when a Complaint is verified, the Answer shall also be verified.  This consists not only of a signed Verification page, but also requires each Defendant to specifically admit or deny each sentence, paragraph, or part of the verified Complaint. 

 

Currently, each of the Defendants’ Second Amended Answers contains a general denial, which is insufficient.  Defendants are all acting in pro per, but in doing so are still bound to comply with all rules of procedure just as any attorney.  A specific denial may be phrased as follows: 

 

“Defendant DENIES each allegation of the following numbered paragraphs: ___”;

“Defendant DENIES the following allegations and admits all other allegations: ___”; or

“Defendant ADMITS the following allegations and generally denies all other allegations: ___”.

 

See Weil & Brown (The Rutter Group 2017), Civil Procedure Before Trial, Ch. 6, § 6:412. 

 

Defendants are ordered to file their Third Amended Verified Answers to Complaint within ten days of Notice of Entry of this Order. 

 

The Prevailing party shall submit a written order to the court consistent with crc 3.1312.

 

 



9:00

Line: 5

17-CIV-02888  FRED H. GEISLER, MD, et al. vs. TERRY J. JOHNSTON, et al

 

 

FRED H. GEISLER, M.D. ET AL                      Jeffrey F. Ryan    

TERRY JOHNSTON     

 

 

TEDAN SURGICAL INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDUCTION

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Court grants leave for Plaintiffs to conduct discovery limited to the issues of jurisdiction regarding Defendant TeDan in order to establish the nature and extent of TeDan’s “contacts” in California.  (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1173;  Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 CA3d 703)

 

Before the hearing, the parties are directed to meet and confer and reach an agreement concerning the scope and time limit of this limited discovery, as well as a date for the continued hearing.

 

 This motion is continued to a date to be agreed upon by the parties

 

     A.   General Jurisdiction.

 

It is undisputed that Terry Johnson has run a San Carlos office of TeDan and others for many years. But it is also undisputed that TeDan considers the Sugar Land, Texas office as its home office. Plaintiffs cite no authority holding that a business entity can have more than one principal place of business.

 

Plaintiff Geisler states that the Texas office is nothing but a warehouse, but he offers no factual foundation for that conclusion. In contrast, Mr. Fishman, managing member of TeDan, testifies that TeDan conducts its executive, development, management, customer service, regulatory affairs, operations, and logistics in Sugar Land and Houston. (Rebuttal Declaration of Fishman ¶ 6.) He also states that Mr. Johnston’s activities in California “relate solely to product development, international and US. Domestic sales and distribution, which are not executive functions.” (Id.)

 

The current state of the evidence is insufficient for the Court to conclude that Defendant TeDan is subject to general jurisdiction in California.

    


B.   Specific Jurisdiction.

 

The evidence also fails to support subjecting Defendant TeDan to specific jurisdiction. The complaint alleges one cause of action against Defendant TeDan, which is for constructive trust. The Complaint alleges that other Defendants committed acts that resulted in TeDan’s receiving money and property that rightfully belong to Rhausler. (First Amended Complaint para. 204 & 205.) There are no charging allegations against TeDan.

 

Plaintiffs offer no evidence that TeDan did anything “with respect to the matter in controversy,” or that the controversy is related to or arises out of TeDan’s contacts with California. (See Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269.) No facts or allegations support Plaintiffs’ contention that the claims for fraud, conversion, and unfair business practices “arise directly out of TeDan’s conduct in the state of California and specifically, the San Carlos office . . ..” (See Oppos. P&A at 12:24-27.) 

 

      

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant 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: 6

CIV530137     STATE FARM, ET AL. VS. JENNIFER LEIGH PEARL, ET AL.

 

 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY    TODD F. HAINES

JENNIFER LEIGH PEARL                             Pro/PER

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ENTER JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT JENNIFER LEIGH PEARL

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s unopposed Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and to Enter Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on grounds the supporting attorney declaration does not authenticate the attached “Stipulation for Entry of Judgment.”  See Evid. Code Sect. 1400 et. seq.  The declaration also does not state that Plaintiff has incurred $522 in Court costs.  However, aside from these procedural defect(s), the Court finds that the motion has merit.  Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 664.6.  If Plaintiff’s counsel appears at the hearing, authenticates the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, and attests that Plaintiff has incurred $522 in Court costs, then the Court will consider granting the motion and entering Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor, in the requested amount of $24,226.24. 

 



9:00

Line: 7

CIV536166     A1 SOLAR POWER ET AL. VS. PATRICIA GAMMAGE, ET AL.

 

 

A1 SOLAR POWER, INC.                   LINDA D. LUCERO

PATRICIA GAMMAGE                       SCOTT MAURER

 

 

PATRICIA AND GUY GAMMAGE’S MOTIONFOR AN ORDER COMPELLING A RESPONSE TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion is granted.  Plaintiff shall provide verified responses, without objection, to the interrogatories and inspection demands within 14 days.  The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters in the requests for admission are deemed admitted. 

 

The request for sanctions is also granted pursuant to CCP §2033.280(c).  Plaintiff’ counsel Linda Lucero shall pay Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County $750 within 14 days. 

      

 

The Prevailing party shall submit a written order to the court consistent with crc 3.1312.

 



9:00

Line: 8

CLJ535372     LVNV FUNDING LLC. VS. CRYSTAL HOWELL

 

 

LVNV FUNDING LLC                       WILLIAM A. MARK

CRYSTAL HOWELL                         Pro/PER

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion is granted.  The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters in the requests for admission are deemed admitted. 

 

The Prevailing party shall submit a written order to the court consistent with crc 3.1312.

 


 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County