March 31, 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

 

Thursday, March 26, 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 496031       ARCHSTONE VS. BEUTLER CORPORATION, ET AL.

 

 

ARCHSTONE                             ANDREW E. SAXON

BEUTLER CORPORATION                   CHRISTIAN P. LUCIA

 

 

MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT ON BEHALF OF DELTA PAINTING AND COATING, INC., DBA TRUE -TECH AND BEUTLER CORPORATION

 

 

  • The Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement brought by Defendant Beutler Corporation is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §877.6 and Tech-Built, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde Associates (1985) 38 Cal.App.3d 488. 

 

  • 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.

 

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 513534       AUSTIAG HORMOZ PARINEH, ET AL. VS. POOROUSHASB                                   

                  PARINEH, ET AL.

 

 

AUSTIAG HORMOZ PARINEH                ANDREW P. HOLLAND

POOROUSHASB PARINEH                   PRO/PER

 

 

DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT BY AUSTIAG HORMOZ PARINEH

 

 

·         Continued to April 13, 2015 at 9:00a.m. on the Court’s motion.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 525053       MANOLO VASQUEZ VS. BI-RITE RESTUARANT SUPPLY

                   COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

 

 

MANOLO VASQUEZ                        ASHWIN V LADVA

BI-RITE RESTUARANT SUPPLY COMP        LISA BARNETT SWEEN

 

 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES BY MANOLO VASQUEZ

 

 

·         DENIED.  After a review of the reporter’s notes, the order signed by the Court accurately reflects the Court’s ruling at the prior hearing.

 

·         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

4

CIV 530401       CHRISTY STRICKLAND VS. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, 

                  INC., ET AL.

 

CHRISTY STRICKLAND                       DAVID M. SLOAN

COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

 

 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT OF DR. JOHN T. NING, NON PARTY WITNESS BY CHRISTY STRICKLAND

 

 

·         Non-Party Witness Dr. John T. Ning is ordered to appear and show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of court and punished accordingly for willfully disobeying this court’s order granting petitioner’s Ex Parte application for order to reset deposition of Dr. John T. Ning, nonparty witness, based upon lack of service in action pending outside California issued on December 30, 2014, in the above entitled action.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 530676       JEFFREY SCOTT GANANIAN VS. BARBARA KUEHN, ESQ.,

                   ET AL.

 

 

JEFFREY SCOTT GANANIAN                   JEFFREY S. GANANIAN

BARBARA KUEHN, ESQ.                      PAUL J. SMOOT

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS BY JEFFREY SCOTT GANANIAN

 

 

  • Plaintiff JEFFREY GANANIAN’s Motion to Strike / Tax Costs is DENIED. 

 

·         A party’s right to recover costs is governed by statute. [Boonyarit v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1992].  Code Civ. Proc. § 1032(b) provides, “except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.”  The term “prevailing party” includes “a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.”  [Code Civ. Proc. § 1032(a)(4)].  A dismissal is entered when it is entered in the clerk’s register; it is thereafter effective for all purposes.  [Code Civ. Proc. § 581(d)].

 

  • This Court filed and entered a dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, which became effective for all purposes on December 18, 2014.  Since the dismissal was entered in favor of Defendants, Defendants are the prevailing parties and are entitled to their costs.

 

  • Plaintiff did not serve a Notice of Entry of Dismissal until January 16, 2015, and now argues that Defendants’ cost memorandum is “untimely” (which the Court interprets as “premature”) because it was filed on January 5, 2015.  However, California Rules of Court, Rule 1700(a)(1) provides that a cost memorandum must be filed “within 15 days after the date of mailing of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” (Emphasis added.)  The Court finds that Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs was filed within the time limits prescribed in Rule 1700(a)(1), and that the costs were reasonable and necessary.  Accordingly, the motion is denied. 

 

  • 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 531189       MICHAEL W. ROBERTS, ET AL. VS. BRUCE ANTHONY ROBERTS

 

 

MICHAEL W. ROBERTS                    BARRY W. PRUETT

BRUCE ANTHONY ROBERTS

 

 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS PRO 123823 WITH CIV 531189 BY

MICHAEL W. ROBERTS

·        

·The motion to consolidate is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff did not submit any evidence that the present action and the Estate of Maria Roberts (PRO 123823) involve any “common question of law or fact.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1048, subd. (a)).

 

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

7

CIV 531756       FRANCES FELICH VS. PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE, ET AL

 

 

FRANCES FELICH                        PRO/PER

PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE                JOSEPH J. MINIOZA

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP

 

 

·         The motion is DENIED.  CCP §418.10 provides that a defendant may file a motion to quash service of summons on the ground the court lacks jurisdiction over the named defendant.  In this case, there is nothing to quash.  A review of the court’s docket indicates that plaintiff has not filed a proof of service purporting to establish service on defendant.  Moreover, plaintiff indicates that she has not served the summons and complaint.

 

·         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

8

CIV 531827       NIRMALA D. PRASAD VS. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

                   ET AL.

 

 

NIRMALA D PRASAD                      PRO/PER

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION        LISA M. BOWMAN

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF PRASAD BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

 

 

  • Defendants U.S. Bank, N.A. and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code §452(c), (h).

 

  • The unopposed demurrer by Defendants U.S. Bank, N.A. and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC to the Plaintiff’s complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

 

  • Each claim set forth in the complaint arise from the 2005 origination of the note and deed of trust or from the assignment of the loan in 2007 and the resulting sale of the property. The causes of action are barred by the statutes of limitation set forth in CCP §337(1) [3rd C/A], 338(d) [7th, 8th , 9th and 10th], Civil Code §1783 [6th C/A] and 12 USC §2607 [4th C/A]. Plaintiff has not alleged any sufficient facts to justify equitable tolling of the applicable statutes of limitations. Plaintiff’s own allegations and the judicially noticed document show that her claims are incurably time-barred.

 

  • The complaint also fails because the plaintiff has failed to alleged tender. [Abdallah v.United Savings Bank (1996) 43 CA 4th 1101, 1109].

 

  • Finally, each cause of action (C/A) is defective:

 

  • The 1st C/A for declaratory relief fails as declaratory relief is not a vehicle to right past alleged wrongs.[ CCP  §1060. Roberts  v. Los Angeles County Bar Association (2003) 105 Cal App 4th  604, 618].

 

  • The 2nd C/A for injunctive relief fails as it is not a cause of action but is a remedy. [Marlin v. AIMCO Venezia, LLC (2007) 154 Cal App 4th 154, 162]. Plaintiff has also failed to plead facts warranting extraordinary injunctive relief.

 

  • The 3rd C/A for contractual breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing the cause of action fails for vagueness and because there can be no breach of the implied covenant based upon conduct permitted by the parties’ express agreement. [See Carma Developers, Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Co., Inc. (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 1460, 1477]. Defendants’ ability to collect payments and foreclose upon default is permitted under both the note and deed of trust and cannot serve as a basis for this claim.

 

  • The 4th C/A for violation of the real estate settlement and procedures act [RESPA] fails as there are no allegations as to these demurring defendants. The cause of action fails to include any allegations regarding how the RESPA act relates to the property or to any defendant. (See ¶¶ 33-38).

 

  • The 5th C/A for rescission fails it is not a cause of action it is a remedy. [Nakash v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal App 3d 59, 70].

 

  • The 6th C/A for unfair business practices fails as it does not state any facts as to these Defendants. Plaintiff has not alleged that she suffered actual damages as a result of defendants’ alleged actions. Without actual damages plaintiff cannot pursue a cause of action.[ Civil Code §1780(a)].

 

  • The 7th C/A for breach of fiduciary duty fails as it consists of just one sentence accusing unspecified defendants of illegally evicting homeowners. Plaintiff has failed to allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship, its breach and damage proximately caused by that breach. [Roberts v. Lomanto (2004) 112 Cal App 4th 1553, 1562].

 

  • The 8th C/A for unconscionable contract or clause fails as it is a defense, not a claim. Civil Code §1670.5 does not confer a cause of action premised on an unconscionable clause in the contract.

 

  • The 9th C/A for predatory lending fails as it is time-barred. Moreover, the legal basis for the claim is completely unclear. (¶¶ 53-55).

 

  • The 10th C/A for quiet title fails as it is not in itself a cause of action but rather is the relief granted once a court determines the title belongs in plaintiff.[ Leeper v. Beltrami (1959) 53 Cal 2d 195, 216]. Plaintiff has failed to allege that she has standing to bring her claims based on a purported improper assignment. Plaintiff therefore cannot seek quiet title as a remedy.

 

  • Demurring 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

CIV 531856       STEPHEN D. BARD VS. MICHAEL T. MOE, ET AL.

 

 

STEPHEN D. BARD                       JOSEPH W. COTCHETT

MICHAEL T. MOE

 

 

APPLICATION TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE BY JESSICA GREENWOOD

 

 

  • Douglass Maynard’s Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant Mark Klein 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. 

 

  • Jessica Greenwood’s Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant Mark Klein 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.

 

  • 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.

 

 

 

APPLICATION TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE BY DOGLASS B. MAYNARD

 

 

 

  • Douglass Maynard’s Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant Mark Klein 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.

 

  • 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 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 529171       IN RE: $2,015.00

 

 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE               MEGAN WILKINS

TORY STONE                               PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

  • The Motion to Compel real party in interest Tory Stone to respond to Form Interrogatories [Set 1] by Plaintiff People of the State of California is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff did not provide a proof of service showing that the motion was served on the real party in interest in compliance with CCP §1005. In addition, the plaintiff did not include the discovery as exhibits to the motion despite an index of exhibits stating that the Interrogatories were attached along with a proof of service.

 

  • 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.

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER THAT REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

  • The Motion to Deem Request for Admissions [Set 1] to be Admitted by Plaintiff is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff did not provide a proof of service showing that the motion was served on the real party in interest in compliance with CCP §1005. In addition, the plaintiff did not include the discovery as exhibits to the motion despite an index of exhibits stating that the Requests for Admissions were attached along with a proof of service.

 

  • 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.

 

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:01

11

CLJ 210883       SPIROS KOSTIS VS. MARIA HANANINA, ET AL.

 

 

SPIROS KOSTIS                         JAMES D. FRANGOS

MARIA HANANINA                        SHIRLEY E. GIBSON

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY MARIA HANANINA

 

 

·         Off calendar at the request of the moving party.

 

 

___________________________________________________________________


9:01

12

CLJ 526032       MARYANN WOODALL, ET AL VS. THE CIRCOSTA FAMILY

                   LIMITED PARTNERS, LP., ET AL.

 

 

MARYANN WOODALL                       WALTER E. SHJEFLO

THE CIRCOSTA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERS  DAVID MILLSTEIN

 

 

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHORTEN TIME BY MARYANN WOODALL, ET AL.

 

 

·         Appear on March 26, 2015 at 9:00 am.

 

 

____________________________________________________________________


_

 

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, March 26, 2015

 

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 531697       RAUL ALFRED CASTRO, JR. VS. GEORGE VALVERDE, ET AL.

 

 

RAUL ALFRED CASTRO, JR.               MAJEED S. SAMARA

GEORGE VALVERDE                       KAMALA D. HARRIS

 

 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 

 

·         The Petition for Writ is DENIED.  In exercise of this Court’s independent judgment, the weight of the evidence supports the decision of the hearing officer. See Brenner v. DMV (2010) 189 Cal App 4th 365, 370.  Here the Deputy’s decision to conduct a welfare check on the vehicle in the service station did not initially constitute a detention. The course of the contact led to reasonable cause to believe petitioner was driving under the influence of alcohol.  Petitioner admitted drinking a beer. Petitioner was properly admonished regarding the consequences of refusal, yet, petitioner refused three times to take a chemical test. (see DS 367 and page 13 of the transcript)

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


2:00

2

CIV 530202       MURAHARI AMARNATH, ET AL. VS. MICHAEL W. SGANGA

 

 

MURAHARI AMARNATH                     CHARLES S. BRONITSKY

MICHAEL W. SGANGA                     PRO/PER

 

 

APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

 

 

·         The unopposed application for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED, pursuant to CCP section 526(a).  The Plaintiff has given proper notice and has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and that Plaintiff would suffer a greater harm from denial of the injunction than Defendant will suffer if it is granted. Undertaking pursuant to CCP 529(a) is set at $25,000.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 


 


 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Special Set Calendar

Judge: Honorable V. RAYMOND swope

Department 23

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 7D

 

Thursday, March 26, 2015

 

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

3.  YOU MUST CALL (650) 261-5123 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. TO INFORM THE COURT OF YOUR INTENT TO APPEAR.

4.  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

1                             

CIV 508978   SUZANNE M. VALENTE VS. MICHAEL H. WHITEHALL

 

 

SUZANNE M. VALENTE                    COREY A. EVANS

MICHAEL H. WHITEHALL                  JAMES A. MURPHY

 

 

RENOTICED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CCP 128.7 FOLLOWING COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION REVERSING JUDGEMENT AS TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CCP 128.7

 

 

·         Hearing continued to June 11, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:05 PM

 

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County