May 31, 2016
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 JOSEPH C. SCOTT

Department 25

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2G

 

Thursday, May 26, 2016

 

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 530285       RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER, ET AL. VS. FARIN NAMDARAN

                   YEGANEH, ET AL.

 

 

RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER                 AMANDA FITZSIMMONS

FARIN NAMDARAN YEGANEH                DANIEL L. CASAS

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM RAMIN YEGANEH TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, AND FOR SANCTIONS, BY RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER AND DLA PIPER LLP

 

 

·         The Motion to Compel Further Responses is granted as to the following items in dispute:  1) Requests for Production of Documents 45-121.  Defendant’s responses do not comply with CCP §2031.210, §2031.220 or §2031.230; 2) Form Interrogatory 15.1 as to the denial of material allegations in paragraphs 1-14 of the First Amended Complaint (FAC).  The paragraphs contain material allegations regarding Defendant’s aliases and alter ego relationship to other entity defendants; 3) Form Interrogatory 15.1 subparts (b) and (c) as to all affirmative defenses.  Defendant’s responses are evasive as he does not provide the names, addresses or phone numbers of witnesses or a statement that he is unable to do so despite a good faith effort to obtain the information.  [CCP §2030.220.]  In addition, Defendant’s indication that documents supporting his affirmative defenses are in prior document productions or in various case files is evasive; 4) Form Interrogatory 15.1 subpart (b) as to the denial of material allegations in paragraphs 72-100, 101-104, 117-125, 127-141, 143-148, 150-198 and 200-297 of the FAC.  Again, Defendant fails to provide names, addresses or phone numbers or to indicate he has made a good faith effort to obtain the information; 5) Form Interrogatory subpart (c) as to all denials of material allegations in the FAC.  Defendant’s reference to all documents in a case file or unspecified public records is evasive.   

 

·         Defendant shall provide supplemental, code compliant responses no later than June 15, 2016.

 

·         The motion is DENIED as to all other items in dispute.

 

·         Defendant shall pay sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel for having to bring the motion in the amount of $3,500.00 no later than June 15, 2016.

 

  • 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 533847       PALO ALTO PARK MUTUAL WATER COMPANY VS. STATE OF

                   CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 

 

PALO ALTO PARK MUTUAL WATER COMPANY   ANDREW G. WATTERS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF TRANSPORATATION   ROSEMARY I. LOVE

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO FIRst Amended COMPLAINT of PALO

ALTO PARK MUTUAL WATER COMPANY BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAION

 

 

  • The Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (“CalTrans”) is GRANTED.

 

·         Government Code §815 provides, “Except as otherwise provided by statute: (a) A public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.”  CalTrans is immune from liability for Plaintiff’s sole cause of action for trespass, which is a tort claim.  [Odello Bros. v. County of Monterey (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 778, 793.]

 

·         Plaintiff’s belated argument that it owns an easement by necessity is rejected.  A plaintiff may not oppose a summary judgment motion with evidence of a new theory of liability that was not alleged in the complaint.  [City of Hope Nat. Medical Center v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 633, 639.]  In addition, this claim is also barred by Gov. Code §815, as an easement by necessity is also a common law cause of action.  [Murphy v. Burch (2009) 46 Cal.4th 157, 164.] 

 

·         Request for Judicial Notice of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint by CalTrans is GRANTED only insofar as the First Amended Complaint was filed with this court, but not as to the truth of any matters asserted therein. 

 

·         Evidentiary Objections by CalTrans are SUSTAINED as to Objection Nos. 2 and 3 to the Loudd Declaration and OVERRULED as to Objection No. 1.  The objections are SUSTAINED as to Objection Nos. 1-3 to the Waters Declaration.

 

  • Moving party is directed to prepare a written order and judgment 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 536713       TERESA JUAREZ, ET AL. VS. TREYANA PIERCE

 

 

TERESA JUAREZ                         JOSEPH K. BRAVO

TREYANA PIERCE                        ALEXANDER M. KALLIS

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TERESA JUAREZ'S RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS BY TREYANA PIERCE

 

 

·         Moot.  Case was dismissed without prejudice on May 12, 2016.

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TERESA M. JUAREZ'S RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS BY TREYANA PIERCE

 

 

·         See above.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:00

4

CLJ 535168       COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. LILIANNE BADER

 

 

COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY      GREGG STRUMWASSER

LILIANNE BADER                        JOHN P. SCIACCA

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

 

 

  • The Motions to Compel are GRANTED.  Defendant shall provide verified responses, without objection, to the subject interrogatories and requests for production of documents no later than June 10, 2016.

 

  • The Requests for Sanctions are 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.

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

 

 

·         See above.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:01

5

CIV 536529       RANDY GAPPI VS. YTR HOMES ICF/DD-H INC., ET AL.

 

 

RANDY GAPPI                           RICHARD TAGUINOD

YTR HOMES ICF/DD-H INC.               JOHN S. HONG

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF GAPPI BY LORNA VILLANUEVA

 

 

·         This matter is continued to May 31, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., in the Law and Motion department by motion of the Court.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

9:01

6

CIV 537740       JOSE VERDUSCO VS. ANDY MAR, ET AL.

 

 

JOSE VERDUSCO                         TODD P. EMANUEL

ANDY MAR                              GRANT A. WINTER

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRst Amended COMPLAINT of VERDUSCO BY COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

 

 

  • The Demurrer to the 1st through 5th Causes of Action are SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.  As against Defendant County of San Mateo, each cause of action alleges only vicarious liability based on respondeat superior.  However, the 1st through 5th Causes of Action do not allege any facts that could support a finding that Defendant Mar was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the incident.  Whatever duties a sheriff’s deputy has when assigned as a courtroom bailiff, it does not reasonably include, without additional factual allegations, drawing a weapon and pointing it at a court custodian.  The Complaint contains no allegations that Defendant Mar was engaging in any act related to his duties when the incident occurred.  (See, e.g., Scruggs v. Haynes (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 256 [battery occurred during traffic stop]; (Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem'l Hosp. (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 298-300 [within scope of employment if related to workplace dispute].)

 

  • In addition, the Complaint contains no allegations suggesting that the incident was “inherent in the working environment” or that “as a practical matter are sure to occur in the conduct of the employer’s enterprise.”  (Lisa M., supra, at 298-300; Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 1003- 04 [wrongful acts outside scope of employment as matter of law when committed for personal reasons].)  Plaintiff’s citation to City of Los Angeles City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 778, 782-783 (Opp. at 4) is unhelpful because that case addressed discovery objections and contained no ruling on whether a set of facts sufficiently described scope of employment.

 

  • Demurrer to the 6th Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.  Plaintiff concedes that no statute exists imposing liability against a public entity for negligent hiring.  (Munoz v. City of Union City (2013) 120 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1113.)  The Complaint pleads no facts demonstrating that any special relationship exists between Defendant County and Plaintiff that would support imposing a duty of care.  (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861.)

 

  • Plaintiff is granted leave of Court until June 15, 2016 to file and serve an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies of the 1st through 6th causes of action if he chooses to do so.      

 

  • If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court.  Thereafter, counsel for Defendant County of San Mateo 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.  

 


 

 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Presiding Judge Law and Motion Calendar

Judge: HONORABLE JOHN L. GRANDSAERT

Department 11

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2D

 

Thursday, May 26, 2016

 

If you plan to appear on any case on this calendar,

 you must call (650) 261-5111 before 4:00 p.m. and you must give notice also before 4:00 p.m. to all parties of your intent to appear pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1308(a)(1).

 

Case                   Title / Nature of Case

9:00

1

CIV 537954      COBALT PARTNERS, LP, ET AL. VS. SUNEDISON, INC., ET

                  AL.

 

 

COBALT PARTNERS, LP                   DENNIS J. HERMAN

SUNEDISON, INC.

 

 

COMPLEX CASE STATUS CONFERENCE

 

 

·         Notice of Removal having been filed on April 27, 2016, the Complex Case Status Conference is continued for ninety (90) days to August 26, 2016, at 9:00 A.M., on the Presiding Judge Law and Motion calendar.

 


 

 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

WRITS AND RECEIVERS CALENDAR

Judge: Honorable GEORGE A. MIRAM

Department 28

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2F

 

Thursday, May 26, 2016

 

If you plan to appear on any case on this calendar,

 you must call (650) 261-5128 before 4:00 p.m. and you must give notice also before 4:00 p.m. to all parties of your intent to appear pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1308(a)(1).

 

Case                  Title / Nature of Case

2:00

1

CIV 538012       DAVID C. EBLOVI VS. JESSICA BLAIR, ET AL.

 

 

DAVID C. EBLOVI                       PRO/PER

JESSICA BLAIR

 

 

SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PETITIONER DAVID C. EBLOVI'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE BY ALLAN ALIFANO

 

 

  • The motion is granted.

 

  • The Petition arises from protected First Amendment activity in that it seeks to strike Real Parties’ arguments submitted in opposition to a ballot measure.  (Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1, 19 [statements about ballot measure constituted “protected activity” within meaning of first step of anti-SLAPP analysis].)  Because Real Parties have demonstrated that the Petition arises from protected activity, the burden shifts to Petitioner to demonstrate that he has a probability of prevailing.  (HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 204, 211.)

 

  • In opposing an anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiff must produce evidence that would be admissible at trial.  (HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 204, 212.)  Petitioner offers no evidence and thereby fails to meet his opposing burden of proof.  On the merits, the motion should be granted.  Petitioner argues only that his Notice of Appeal stays this court from ruling on Real Parties’ motion.

 

  • “The perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. §916, subd. (a).)  Real Parties’ Special Motion to Strike is not part of the judgment nor is it “embraced or affected” by the judgment since the Court is required to hear and rule on a special motion to strike regardless of whether judgment has been entered or the matter dismissed.  (Pfeiffer Venice Properties v. Bernard (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 211, 217.)

 

  • Petitioner offers no showing that a ruling on the Special Motion to Strike could interfere with or affect the Court of Appeal’s handling of the appeal or that the Court of Appeal’s disposition of appeal could affect this Court’s ruling on the Special Motion to Strike.  

 

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

 


 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County