August 28, 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 jonathan e. karesh

Department 20

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 8C

 

Thursday, August 25, 2016

 

NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL

 

Until further order of the Court, no endorsed-filed “courtesy copy” of pleadings is required to be provided to the Law and Motion Department.

 

 

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.

 

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

 

LINE 1

16-CIV-00084

DARRYL JUE vs. JALAL J. SAFFARIAN, et al.

 

 

DARRYL JUE

Kevin E. Fusch

JALAL J. SAFFARIAN

 

 

 

Hearing on Demurrer

TENTATIVE RULING: 

 

The demurring party, Defendants Hiep Nguyen and Intero Real Estate Services, Inc. have failed to file a declaration, as required by CCP §430.41(a)(3), stating that the parties met and conferred in person or by telephone for the purpose of determining whether an agreement could be reached to resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. The hearing on the demurrer is continued until September 28, 2016 at 9 AM in the Law and Motion Department so that the parties may meet and confer. The demurring party is required to file, no later than 7 days prior to the new hearing date, a code compliant declaration stating either (1) the parties have met and conferred and (a) the parties have resolved the objections raised in the demurrer, which shall be taken off calendar or (b) the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer or (2) the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith. If the parties failed to file and serve the declaration demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Section 430.41, the demurrer will be stricken as procedurally improper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:00

 

LINES 2 & 3

CIV508888

CINDY K. HUNG, ET AL. VS. TRIBAL TECHNOLOGIES, ET AL.

 

 

CINDY K. HUNG

LYNDA HUNG

TRIBAL TECHNOLOGIES

KASEY C. TOWNSEND

 

 

Motion to Compel DEFENDANT VICTORIA DINOVICH FOR FURTHER discovery responses

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is denied. The Motion fails to comply with the meet-and-confer requirement of a motion to compel further responses. (Code of Civ. Proc. sections 2030.300(b) & 2016.040; see Declaration of Linda Hung, paragraph 5 and Exhibit C.)       

 

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 to Compel DEFENDANT JOSEPH VIERRA FOR FURTHER discovery responses

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is denied. The motion fails to comply with the meet-and-confer requirement of a motion to compel further responses. (Code of Civ. Proc. sections 2030.300(b) & 2016.040; see Declaration of Linda Hung, paragraph 5 and Exhibit C.)       

 

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

 

LINE 4

CIV524779

ISRAEL ARTEAGA VS. ROQUE ARTEAGA, JR., ET AL.

 

 

ISRAEL ARTEAGA

IGNASCIO G. CAMARENA, II

ROQUE ARTEAGA, JR

HARPAUL NAHAL

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY ROQUE ARTEAGA JR., ET AL.

TENTATIVE RULING: 

 

Defendant / Cross-Complainants ROQUE ARTEAGA, JR. and SITEWORKS GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is CONTINUED to September 14, 2016 pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Section 437c(a)(3), (h). 

 

Plaintiff ISRAEL ARTEAGA is permitted to obtain affidavits or other admissible evidence to support his opposition.  Any supplemental opposition / affidavits must be filed no later than September 2, 2016, and served on Defendants via e-mail, facsimile, or overnight mail.  Any supplemental reply must be filed no later than September 7, 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:00

 

LINE 5

CIV528849

DEREK CHUNG, ET AL. VS. HUGO TEJADA, ET AL.

 

 

DEREK CHUNG

JASON M. FLOM

HUGO TEJADA

DANIEL L. CASAS

 

 

Motion for Entry of Judgment

TENTATIVE RULING: 

 

Off calendar at the request of the Moving Party.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:00

 

LINE 6

CIV530285

RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER VS. FARIN NAMDARAN YEGANEH

 

 

RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER

AMANDA FITZSIMMON

FARIN NAMDARAN YEGANCH

 

 

 

Motion FOR AN ORDER STAYING THIS ENTIRE ACTION

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant Ramin Yeganeh’s Motion for an Order Staying this Entire Action Pending Resolution of Defendant Ramin Yeganeh’s Appeal from the Denial of His Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment and For Restitutionary Relief Regarding the Underlying Judgment in Case No. CIV-410856 will be heard by Hon. Donald J. Ayoob in Department 27. The moving party is instructed to contact that department to schedule the hearing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:00

 

LINE 7

CIV530805

LEAH GONZALEZ LEAVY VS. SUTTER HEALTH, ET AL.

 

 

LEAH GONZALEZ LEAVY

PHYLLIS E. ANDELIN

SUTTER HEALTH

RAMON A. MIYAR

 

 

Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is to be heard by Hon. Gerald J. Buchwald, Department 10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:00

 

LINE 8

CIV537530

SOPHIA ANDRITSAKIS VS. DAVID J. KAPLAN, ET AL.

 

 

SOPHIA ANDRITSAKIS

EDIRIVERERE PATIENCE ADEYANJU

DAVID J. KAPLAN

ARTHUR W. CURLEY

 

 

Motion to Compel FURTHER RESPONSES

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion of Defendant David J. Kaplan, D.P.M., erroneously sued herein as David J. Kaplan (“Defendant”), to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, is CONTINUED to 9:00 a.m. on September 23, 2016 in the Law and Motion Department for: 

 

(1) No later than 7 days before the new hearing date, Defendant is to file and serve a new separate statement that complies with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c).  Defendant’s separate statement includes only Plaintiff’s supplemental responses and fails to also include Plaintiff’s original responses.  (See Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c)(2).)  “The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(c).)

 

Further, Plaintiff’s supplemental responses to special interrogatories nos. 10, 11 and 22 refer to documents attached to Plaintiff’s Response to the Request for Production of Documents as Exhibit A.  Defendant has not provided the court with the response to the Request for Production of Documents, or the documents themselves.  To the extent that a response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth. (See Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c)(5).) 

 

The court also notes that the special interrogatories attached to Defendant’s counsel’s declaration, are a copy of the special interrogatories that Plaintiff propounded on Defendant, not the special interrogatories that are the subject of this motion.

 

(2) No later than 7 days before the new hearing date, Plaintiff’s counsel is to file and serve an amended declaration that attaches  Exhibit A, the June 27, 2016 meet and confer letter from Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant’s counsel, that is referenced in Plaintiff’s opposition. 

 

(3) Prior to the new hearing date, the parties are also to meet and confer in person in a good faith effort to resolve this dispute on an item-by-item basis.  The parties are to comply with the guidelines set forth in Townsend v. Superior Court (1998)  61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434-1435.)  The parties are then to file supplemental briefs no later than 7 days prior to the new hearing date, addressing whether the parties met and conferred in person, and what, if any items, remain in dispute. 

 

If the parties have resolved all the issues raised in the motion, then Defendant shall notify the court that the motion shall be taken off calendar. 

 

The court reserves its ruling on Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s requests for sanctions until the new hearing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:00

 

LINES 9 & 10

CIV537812

MESROP KHACHTRAIAN VS. MICHAEL CRAUSE

 

 

MESROP KHACHATRIAN

MARY DER-PARSEGHIAN

MICHAEL CRAUSE

ALBERT K. MARTIN

 

 

Hearing on Demurrer

TENTATIVE RULING: 

 

The Demurring party’s supporting attorney declaration does not demonstrate compliance with Code Civ. Proc. Section 430.41, which requires an attempt to meet and confer “in-person or by telephone” with the party who filed the pleading for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached to resolve the objections raised in the Demurrer.  The hearing on the Demurrer is continued until September 23, 2016 at 9 a.m. in the Law & Motion Department.  The Demurring party shall file, no later than 7 days prior to the new hearing date, a declaration stating either (1) the parties have met and conferred and (a) the parties have resolved the objections raised in the Demurrer, which shall be taken off calendar or (b) the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the Demurrer or (2) the party who filed the pleading subject to Demurrer failed to respond to a meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith, which included an attempt to speak with the party who filed the pleading either in-person or by telephone.  If the Demurring party fails to file and serve the requested declaration demonstrating compliance with Section 430.41, the Demurrer should be stricken as procedurally improper. 

 

Demurrer TO ANSWER OF DEFT/X-COMPLAINANT MICHAEL KRAUSE

TENTATIVE RULING: 

 

Off calendar at Moving Party’s request

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:00

 

Line 11

CIV537991

LINDA FAY DANIEL VS. JOSEPH DAVID DANIEL

 

 

LINDA FAY DANIEL

DEBRA R. SCHOENBERG

JOSEPH DAVID DANIEL

EILEEN M. AVILA

 

 

Motion for Leave

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion for Leave to Amend is moot due to the stipulation and order signed by Judge Scott on August 17, 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:00

 

LINE 12

CIV538500

CREDIT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION VS. JULIE HORRIGAN

 

 

CREDIT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

PHILIP LANDSMAN

JULIE HORRIGAN

DANIEL S. RAFF

 

 

Motion TO TRANSFER VENUE

TENTATIVE RULING:  

 

The Motion to Transfer Venue brought by defendant Julie Horrigan is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §397.  The Sacramento County Superior Court is the proper venue for this action because the only named defendant, Julie Horrigan resides in Sacramento County, and her business, Golden State Tack is located in Sacramento County. She signed up for these services in Sacramento County and thus any obligation to make payments was incurred in Sacramento County.

 

The defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to CCP §395(b) is GRANTED in the amount of $1915. The court is awarding reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $1320.00 [4 hours at an hourly rate of $330 per hour] and costs of $595.00.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:00

 

LINE 13

CLJ535724

EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. LOUIS

    PAYCHECK

 

 

EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

W. JEFFERY FULTON

LOUIS PAYCHECK

DAVID T. MOUTOUX

 

 

Motion to Compel RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, ETC

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff Everest National Insurance Co.’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories [Set 1] and Special Interrogatories [Set 1] is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2030.290.  

 

Plaintiff Everest National Insurance Co.’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses  to Request for Production of Documents [Set 1], is GRANTED pursuant to CCP§2031.260.

 

Defendant Lewis Paycheck shall provide verified responses without objection to the Form Interrogatories [Set 1], Special Interrogatories [Set 1] and the Request for Production of Documents [Set One] within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order.

 

Plaintiff Everest National Insurance Co.’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §§2023.010; 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) in the amount of $465.00. (1.5 hours to prepare the motion, and a $90 filing fee.) These sanctions are against the defendant. Because a written opposition was not filed, the court will not award attorney’s fees for the time Plaintiff’s counsel spent reviewing the opposition.  In the event that the matter is contested, the court will consider awarding fees for the .5 hours it will take plaintiff’s counsel to appear at the hearing on this motion and the $78.00 fee to appear electronically.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 

 

 

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, August 25, 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

 

LINE 1

16-CIV-00606

BOBAK BAKHTIARI, et al. vs. CITY OF SAN BRUNO, CITY

    ENFORCMENT DIVISION

 

 

BOBAK BAKHTIARI

ALBERT L. BOASBERG

CITY OF SAN BRUNO, CITY ENFORCMENT DIVISION

 

 

 

Order to Show Cause

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

DENIED. If construed as an appeal of the June 8, 2016 hearing the challenge is untimely pursuant to Government Code section 52069.4.  Further, this court lacks jurisdiction to order the City to issue a permit for a structure that was illegally erected without the benefit of proper planning approvals. The Conditional Use Permit requires any modification be approved by the City.  No such approval has been demonstrated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2:00

 

LINE 2

CIV533615

21X PROPERTIES LP VS. MASON-TARLTON CO, LLC

 

 

21X PROPERTIES LP

ANDREW P. HOLLAND

MASON-TARLTON CO, LLC

PRO/PER

 

 

PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION BY RECEIVER OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR DISCHARGE OF RECEIVER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Given the totality of circumstances, the Receiver is Discharged.  There appears to be little or no demonstrable further benefit to be derived from further activity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2:00

 

LINE 3

CIV537698

DAVID UZIEL VS. CITY OF DALY CITY

 

 

DAVID UZIEL

MICHAEL L. RAINS

CITY OF DALY CITY

ROSE L. ZIMMERMAN

 

 

Petition for Writ of Mandate

TENTATIVE RULING: 

 

Appear for oral argument.

 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Special Set Calendar

Judge: Honorable susan irene etezadi

Department 18

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2M

 

Thursday, August 25, 2016

 

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

 

1. YOU MUST CALL (650) 261-5118 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.

 

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

 

LINE 1

CIV525365

MICHAEL D. LIBERTY VS. THOMAS NUSSBAUM, ET AL.

 

 

MICHEAL D. LIBERTY

MICHAEL D. LIBERTY

THOMAS NUSSBAUM

PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE AND VACATING DEFAULT JUDGMENT GRANTING  MICHAEL LIBERTY ARBITRATION AWARD

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants Thomas Nussbaum and Evelyn Clayton’s Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment Granting Michael Liberty Arbitration Award, is DENIED.

 

The Parties arbitrated their fee dispute before a panel of the San Mateo County Bar Association in August 2013. The arbitration award was issued on August 14, 2013. The award became binding upon the passage of 30 days after service of the Notice of Award when neither party sought a trial after arbitration pursuant to Business & Professions Code §6204. See Business & Professions Code §6203(b).

 

Plaintiff Liberty filed a Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award on November 20, 2013. Defendants filed opposition to that petition on December 20, 2013. On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award which was opposed by defendants. After a hearing on April 29, 2016, the court granted the motion, confirmed the arbitrator’s award and entered judgment pursuant to CCP §1287.4. The judgment was entered on May 6, 2016. On June 6, 2016, defendants filed the instant Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment.

 

No default judgment was entered in this case. The plaintiff filed a Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award which was opposed by defendants and granted by the court on April 29, 2016. The instant motion was brought on the grounds that the judgment was void and was taken through the extrinsic fraud of Plaintiff Liberty in his petition to the court.  The court’s order granting the Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award does state that the parties agreed to binding arbitration. That order comports with the arbitrator’s award which states that the parties agreed in writing to binding arbitration.

 

Defendants have failed to establish that the judgment in this case is void or was taken against the defendants through any extrinsic fraud. Judgment was entered after the court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award.  As set forth above, the award became binding upon the passage of 30 days after service of the Notice of Award when neither party sought a trial after arbitration pursuant to Business & Professions Code §6204. See Business & Professions Code §6203(b).

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, 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 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County