March 5, 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, March 2, 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 519758       APPLIED MEDICAL CORPORATION VS. T. PETER THOMAS, ET

                   AL

 

 

APPLIED MEDICAL CORPORATION           RICHARD J. GRABOWSKI

T. PETER THOMAS                       SUSAN J. HARRIMAN

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANTS BY APPLIED MEDICAL CORPORATION

 

 

  • The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, propounded on Defendants T. PETER THOMAS; REID DENNIS; and INSTITUTIONAL VENTURE PARTNERS IV, L.P. (“IVP IV”) by Plaintiff Applied Medical Corporation, is DENIED in its entirety.

 

·         “A discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” [Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224]. 

 

·         In addition, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 201.020, “the court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223).

 

  • Plaintiff does not meet its burden of demonstrating how the probative value of the information sought by the discovery requests at issue outweighs the burden, expense, or intrusiveness placed on Defendants to respond.  Accordingly, the Motion is denied.

 

·         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

2

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 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS BY ALPHA CARD SYSTEMS, LLC

 

The Motion is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

 

·         The present Motion challenges the sufficiency of the supplemental responses that Jolly served on January 16, 2015. Therefore, the Motion is not for reconsideration of the Court’s January 30, 2015 order, which concerned Jolly’s deficient responses served on December 22, 2014.

    

·         The fact that Jolly’s supplemental responses continue to assert general objections is not a defect; the objections are merely ineffective. To be effective, objections must identify with particularity the specific document or evidence demanded as to which the objection is made. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031. 240(b).)  Further, some of Jolly’s responses state that Jolly will comply “subject to” the objections, which implies that Jolly stands by the defective objections. Therefore, for each response of compliance “subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,” Jolly shall supplement its response by identifying each document or thing falling within the objection, in a manner that strictly complies with Section 2031.240, subd. (b) & (c).

 

·         Jolly’s statement that documents will be produced at Alpha Card’s expense is not an objection, but a statement of compliance under section 2031.280, subd. (e). For each statement of compliance that requires a translation, Jolly shall produce the translated documents immediately. The parties shall agree on a “reasonable cost” of translation. Failure to agree on the cost shall not delay Jolly’s production of documents. If the parties cannot agree on the cost, then the Court shall determine the reasonable cost upon Jolly’s noticed motion.

 

·         Jolly’s addition of “relevant” in supplemental responses is ambiguous, suggesting that Jolly has subjectively determined whether some documents are responsive, but objectionable. For each statement that “responsive” documents will be produced, Jolly shall supplement its response to identify all documents or things that are responsive, but withheld as “irrelevant,” in compliance with Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(b).

 

·         The spreadsheets created by Brett Changus are attorney work product and need not be produced.

 

·         The requests for Sanctions by each of the parties are DENIED.

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff and Cross-complainant 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. 

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO DEPOSITION NOTICES AND FOR SANCTIONS BY ALPHA CARD SYSTEMS, LLC

 

 

The Motion is DENIED as to all documents pertaining to the arbitration with Kurt Bell. The breadth of claims and cross-claims that were arbitrated strongly suggests that the benefit obtained from discovery is low in relation to the extremely broad extent of discovery being sought. Facts, issues, and evidence in the arbitration could be relevant to Mr. Bell’s credibility as a witness in this case, but the categories of documents in the deposition notices are unreasonably overbroad and not described with “reasonable  particularity.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.220, subd. (a)(4).)

 

·         The Motion is DENIED as to all requests pertaining to Service Level Agreements. The Motion does not explain the connection between the 2007 Software License Agreement and Jolly’s 2013 Service Level Agreements. There is no explanation how documents relating to the “Service Level Agreements” could possibly assist in interpreting the Software License Agreement. It is possible that documents relating to the 2013 Service Level Agreements might shed light on an ambiguous provision of the 2007 Software License Agreement, but Alpha Card’s Motion offers no factual explanation, only conclusions.

 

·         The Motion is conditionally GRANTED as to documents relating to the alleged 10,000 misrepresentations. The Court follows Judge Elizabeth K. Lee’s ruling on a similar issue pertaining to Alpha Card’s Request for Production of Documents. The documents in the Deposition Notices shall be produced at deposition, conditioned on Alpha Card’s paying the reasonable cost of translation. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith regarding the cost of translation.

 

·         Plaintiff Alpha Card may resume depositions of the subject witnesses, limited to subjects relating to documents that are produced pursuant to this order.

 

·         The Court DENIES the requests by each of the parties for Sanctions.

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant and Cross-complainant 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

3

CIV 527709       TRENT MOODY VS. THE CITY OF MENLO PARK, ET AL.

 

 

TRENT MOODY                           DANIEL DELL'OSSO

THE CITY OF MENLO PARK                NICOLAS A. FLEGEL

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY

THE CITY OF MENLO PARK

 

 

·         Moot.  Moving party accepted Plaintiff’s CCP 998 offer on February 19, 2015.

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 527748       JAMES WILKINSON VS. DENNIS ROMERO

 

 

JAMES WILKINSON                       SCOTT E. ATKINSON

DENNIS ROMERO                         JOHN T. HENDRICKS

 

 

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT BY JAMES WILKINSON

 

 

  • Plaintiff James Wilkinson’s Motion to Vacate the judgment is GRANTED pursuant to CCP 473(b).  First, the Motion is timely. The Motion was filed on January 29, 2015 which Defendant’s counsel admits in his opposition was the six-month deadline under CCP 473. Second, Plaintiff has established sufficient surprise and excusable neglect to warrant setting aside the judgment. Vacating the judgment of dismissal will allow the parties to litigate all of their claims in one action which would further fairness, judicial economy and efficiency.  Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint, consistent with his proposed Amended Complaint, no later than March 17, 2015.

 

  • 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

5

CIV 528272       ASHLEY CARLSON VS. TIM LANGELOH

 

 

ASHLEY CARLSON                        BRIAN MICHAEL PRATT

TIM LANGELOH                          SHELLEY ANN KRAMER

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO FORM INTERROGATORIES BY TIM LANGELOH

 

·         Moot.  A Dismissal with prejudice of entire action was filed on February 23, 2015.

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES BY TIM LANGELOH

 

·         See above.

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 529460       MICHELE MORECI, ET AL. VS. LOUIS CIAPPONI

 

 

JONATHAN JASON MORECI                 TYSON REDENBARGER

LOUIS CIAPPONI                        KRISTIN A. McLAUGHLIN

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL SITE INSPECTION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY MICHELE MORECI

 

 

  • Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Site Inspection is GRANTED.  The scope of the inspection is limited in its extent as agreed upon by the parties during their meet and confer discussions.  Plaintiffs’ request for Sanctions is 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

7

CIV 529532       MARK ANTHONY KOSTA VS. LOUIS CIAPPONI

 

 

MARK ANTHONY KOSTA                    MARK HOOSHMAND

LOUIS CIAPPONI                        KRISTIN A. McLAUGHLIN

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL SITE INSPECTION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY MARK ANTHONY KOSTA AND JEANNETTE QUINTANA

 

 

  • Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Site Inspection and Request for Monetary Sanctions as to Michael Cassata and Knox Ricksen, LLC is GRANTED in part.  The Defendants shall permit the site inspection, without a protective order, on or before March 31, 2015.  The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

 

·         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

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

 

 

VICTOR M. CATANZARO                   APRIL S. GLATT

ROBERT BERMAN

 

 

MOTION FOR POST-JUDGMENT FEES AND COSTS BY VICTOR M. CATANZARO AND RIVENDELL II LTD-LP

 

 

·         The unopposed Motion for post-judgment Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Interest by Plaintiffs Victor M. Catanzaro and Riverdell II, Ltd. LP is GRANTED.

 

·         Plaintiffs are entitled to fees and costs incurred in attempting to collect the judgment pursuant to the judgment and the underlying contract which provides for attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party. The declaration of April Glatt amply supports the fee request. The total amount of fees awarded is $4,259.50. The total amount of costs awarded is $812.20. The amount of post-judgment interest awarded is $604.95.

 

·         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

9

CLJ 210610       EAGLE VISTA EQUITIES, LLC VS. JOSE ALBERTO BARBOSA,       

                   ET AL.

 

EAGLE VISTA EQUITIES, LLC             SAM CHANDRA

JOSE ALBERTO BARBOSA

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY

EAGLE VISTA EQUITIES, LLC

 

 

  • Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.  Plaintiff has established the required elements of unlawful detainer under Code of Civil Procedure §1161a: Plaintiff’s ownership and right to possession through the trustee’s private sale and recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale; termination of the Defendants’ right to possession pursuant to a 3-day notice to quit [CCP § 1161a] and the Defendants’ continuing possession. The burden then shifts to Defendants under CCP §437c(p)(1) to establish a triable issue of material fact.  No opposition has been forthcoming.  Plaintiff is awarded a judgment for possession only.

 

  • 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

10

CLJ 531267       CULLIGAN LT PARTNERS, LP VS. SCARIA NARITHOOKIL,  

                   ET AL.

 

CULLIGAN LT PARTNERS, LP              GINGER L. SOTELO

SCARIA NARITHOOKIL                    KEVIN S. SULLIVAN

 

 

APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER/WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AS TO SCARIA NARITHOOKIL FILED BY CULLIGAN LT PARTNERS LP

 

·         DENIED.  CCP §484.090 provides that the Court shall issue a right to attach order if it finds 1) Plaintiff’s claim is one upon which attachment may be issued 2) Plaintiff has established the probable validity of its claim and 3) attachment is not sought for any purpose other than recovery on the claim.

  

·         In this case, Plaintiff has not offered evidence to show that an attachment may issue on its claim.  Specifically, Plaintiff has not established that its claim is for a fixed or readily ascertainable sum.  The complaint prays for rent due from October 31, 2013 through October 15, 2014, in the amount of $14,880.85. (See Complaint at ¶15 and prayer, ¶1).  This is also the amount stated in the application as the amount to be attached.  However, the Culligan declaration states that $17,225.85 is the amount due and the proposed order seeks an attachment in the amount of $25,880.85.

 

·         The above ruling renders Defendant’s claim of exemption moot at this time

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County