December 7, 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, December 1, 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-00617     MTC FINANCIAL INC. vs. 811 SKYLINE DRIVE, DALY CITY

                    CA 94015

 

 

MTC FINANCIAL INC.                     JONATHAN J. DAME

811 SKYLINE DRIVE, DALY CITY CA 94015

 

 

MOTION for ORDER OF DEPOSIT, DISCHARGE AND ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion of Petitioner MTC Financial Inc. dba Trustee Corps. (“Petitioner”) for Order of Deposit, Discharge and Attorney’s Fees and Costs, is CONTINUED to 9:00 a.m. on December 13, 2016 in the Law and Motion Department for Petitioner to file and serve an amended declaration that is signed under penalty of perjury by Petitioner.  (See Petition, p.3.) 

 

The court is in receipt of the opposition by Claimant Ken Wong (“Claimant Wong”) to this motion.  It appears that Claimant Wong brings his claim, in part, on behalf of Tasam Group, Inc. based on a Deed of Trust and Assignment of Rents recorded against the property in favor of Tasam Group, Inc.  Because Tasam Group, Inc. is a corporation, any claim filed on behalf of the corporation must be filed by an attorney.  A corporation cannot represent itself in court, either in propria persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney.”  (Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Mun. Court (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 724, 729.)  It does not appear that Claimant Wong is an attorney.  Therefore, to the extent that he wants the court to consider a claim by Tasam Group, Inc., such a claim must be filed by an attorney representing the corporation.

 

If the court issues an order allowing Petitioner to deposit the surplus proceeds and discharging Petitioner, then the court will set a subsequent hearing date and will address the claims that have been filed at that hearing.

 



9:00

Line: 2   

CIV537132     MICHAEL WATTERS, ET AL. VS. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL

                 MANAGEMENT, LLC

 

 

MICHAEL WATTERS                        ANDREW G. WATTERS

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC     JACK C. NICK

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Per stipulation and order the Motion for Summary Judgment is continued to December 22, 2016 at 9 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.

 



9:00

Line: 3

CIV538555     ALTEN CONSTRUCTION VS. PROJECT FROG, INC.

 

 

ALTEN CONSTRUCTION, INC.               MARK J. RICE

PROJECT FROG, INC.                     JOREN S. AYALA-BASS

 

 

JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants USS CAL Builders, Inc. and Arch Insurance Company‘s unopposed Motion to Transfer San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-16-554758. Project Frog, Inc. v. USS CAL Builders, Inc., to this court is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §403, CRC 3.500(c).

 

Defendants USS CAL Builders, Inc. and Arch Insurance Company‘s unopposed Motion to Consolidate Actions is granted pursuant to CCP §1048.  The cases involve the same or similar parties and similar claims; arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents and events, requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; involve claims against title to, possession of, or damages to the same property and are likely to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard in separate forums.

 

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: 4

CIV538968     ATLAS PELLIZZARI VS. USS CAL BUILDERS

 

 

ATLAS PELLIZZARI ELECTRIC, INC.        PATRICIA WALSH

USS CAL BUILDER, INC.                  MARK A. FELDMAN

 

 

JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants USS CAL Builders, Inc. and Arch Insurance Company‘s unopposed Motion to Transfer San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-16-554758. Project Frog, Inc. v. USS CAL Builders, Inc., to this court is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §403, CRC 3.500(c).

 

Defendants USS CAL Builders, Inc. and Arch Insurance Company‘s unopposed Motion to Consolidate Actions is granted pursuant to CCP §1048.  The cases involve the same or similar parties and similar claims; arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents and events, requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; involve claims against title to, possession of, or damages to the same property and are likely to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard in separate forums.

 

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: 5

CIV538974     DINELLI PLUMBING INCORPorated VS. USS CAL BUILDERS, INC.

 

 

DINELLI PLUMBING INCORPORATED          DAVID M. MCKIM

USS CAL BUILDERS, INC.                 MARK A. FELDMAN

 

 

JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants USS CAL Builders, Inc. and Arch Insurance Company‘s unopposed Motion to Transfer San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-16-554758. Project Frog, Inc. v. USS CAL Builders, Inc., to this court is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §403, CRC 3.500(c).

 

Defendants USS CAL Builders, Inc. and Arch Insurance Company‘s unopposed Motion to Consolidate Actions is granted pursuant to CCP §1048.  The cases involve the same or similar parties and similar claims; arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents and events, requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; involve claims against title to, possession of, or damages to the same property and are likely to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard in separate forums.

 

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: 6

CIV538989     WATERPROOFING ASSOCIATES, INC. VS. PROJECT FROG, INC.

 

 

WATERPROOFING ASSOCIATES, INC.         JOSEPH M. SWEENEY

PROJECT FROG, INC.                     JOREN S. AYALA-BASS

 

 

JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants USS CAL Builders, Inc. and Arch Insurance Company‘s unopposed Motion to Transfer San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-16-554758. Project Frog, Inc. v. USS CAL Builders, Inc., to this court is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §403, CRC 3.500(c).

 

Defendants USS CAL Builders, Inc. and Arch Insurance Company‘s unopposed Motion to Consolidate Actions is granted pursuant to CCP §1048.  The cases involve the same or similar parties and similar claims; arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents and events, requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; involve claims against title to, possession of, or damages to the same property and are likely to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard in separate forums.

 

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.

 

 



9:01

Line: 7

16-UDL-00502    1718 South Grant Street LLC vs. Sergio Tafolla, et al.

 

 

1718 South Grant Street LLC            MICHAEL J. MCLAUGHLIN

Sergio Tafolla

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to Quash is DENIED.  Defendants have not established that the notice of termination is defective.  Defendants cite no authority indicating that an erroneous reference to attorney’s fees renders the 60-day notice defective.  To the extent they argue strict compliance with prescribed notice requirements is necessary, they fail to cite any requirement that has not been met.  CCP §1946.1 simply provides that a tenancy for a term not specified is renewed at the end of the term implied by law unless one of the parties gives 60 days written notice of his intention to terminate the tenancy.  The notice at issue here complies with this requirement. 

 

While Defendants cite Turney and Howard-Horton for the proposition that a notice of termination must be clear, unequivocal and without ambiguity, the subject notice clearly and unambiguously states that Defendants’ tenancy is terminated as of 60-days after service of the notice and that Defendants are required to deliver possession of the premises on or before expiration of the 60-day period. 

 

Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within five days of service of the notice of entry of order.

 

To the extent Defendants’ notice of motion indicates they are making an alternative motion to strike, that motion is denied as the memorandum of points and authorities fails to address the issue. 

 

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.

 



9:01

Line: 8

16-UDL-00503     1718 South Grant Street LLC vs. Isaisas Lopez, et al.

 

 

1718 South Grant Street LLC            MICHAEL J. MCLAUGHLIN

Isaisas Lopez

 

 

MOTION

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to Quash is DENIED.  Defendants have not established that the notice of termination is defective.  Defendants cite no authority indicating that an erroneous reference to attorney’s fees renders the 60-day notice defective.  To the extent they argue strict compliance with prescribed notice requirements is necessary, they fail to cite any requirement that has not been met.  CCP §1946.1 simply provides that a tenancy for a term not specified is renewed at the end of the term implied by law unless one of the parties gives 60 days written notice of his intention to terminate the tenancy.  The notice at issue here complies with this requirement. 

 

While Defendants cite Turney and Howard-Horton for the proposition that a notice of termination must be clear, unequivocal and without ambiguity, the subject notice clearly and unambiguously states that Defendants’ tenancy is terminated as of 60-days after service of the notice and that Defendants are required to deliver possession of the premises on or before expiration of the 60-day period. 

 

Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within five days of service of the notice of entry of order.

 

To the extent Defendants’ notice of motion indicates they are making an alternative motion to strike, that motion is denied as the memorandum of points and authorities fails to address the issue. 

 

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.

 



9:01

Line: 9

16-UDL-00504    1718 South Grant Street LLC vs. Mario Cruz Sandoval, et al.

 

 

1718 South Grant Street LLC            MICHAEL J. MCLAUGHLIN

Mario Cruz Sandoval

 

 

MOTION

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to Quash is DENIED.  Defendants have not established that the notice of termination is defective.  Defendants cite no authority indicating that an erroneous reference to attorney’s fees renders the 60-day notice defective.  To the extent they argue strict compliance with prescribed notice requirements is necessary, they fail to cite any requirement that has not been met.  CCP §1946.1 simply provides that a tenancy for a term not specified is renewed at the end of the term implied by law unless one of the parties gives 60 days written notice of his intention to terminate the tenancy.  The notice at issue here complies with this requirement. 

 

While Defendants cite Turney and Howard-Horton for the proposition that a notice of termination must be clear, unequivocal and without ambiguity, the subject notice clearly and unambiguously states that Defendants’ tenancy is terminated as of 60-days after service of the notice and that Defendants are required to deliver possession of the premises on or before expiration of the 60-day period. 

 

Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within five days of service of the notice of entry of order.

 

To the extent Defendants’ notice of motion indicates they are making an alternative motion to strike, that motion is denied as the memorandum of points and authorities fails to address the issue. 

 

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.

 

 



9:01

Line: 10

CIV534539     LAWRENCE P. PURCELL VS. ERIC CARL DEBODE, ET AL.

 

 

LAWRENCE P. PURCELL                    PHILIP L. GREGORY

ERIC CARL DEBODE                       RICHARD J. VAZNAUGH

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Petitioner MELISSA JEAN HANSELL’s Motion for Leave to File Complaint-in-Intervention is DENIED.  This motion’s extreme untimeliness bars Petitioner from either permissive or mandatory intervention as set forth in Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 387(a), (b).  “It is the general rule that a right to intervene should be asserted within a reasonable time and that the intervener must not be guilty of an unreasonable delay after knowledge of the suit.” Allen v. California Water & Tel. Co. (1947) 31 Cal. 2d 104, 108; see also Ziani Homeowners Ass’n. v. Brookfield (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 274, 282.  Moreover, the late stage of the proceedings at which Petitioner seeks to intervene; the obvious prejudice to Defendants; and the lack of any cogent explanation for the length of Petitioner’s delay in seeking leave to intervene all militate against granting the requested relief.   See League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson (9th Cir. 1997) 131 F.3d 1297, 1302.  Accordingly, the motion is denied.

 

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

 

Presiding Judge Law and Motion Calendar

Judge: HONORABLE JOHN L. GRANDSAERT

Department 11

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2D

 

Thursday, December 1, 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

Line: 1

16-CIV-01732     KEARNY INVESTORS S.A R.L., et al. vs. GOLDMAN SACHS

                   & CO., et al.

 

 

KEARNY INVESTORS S.A R.L.             DAVID M. GRABLE

MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED

 

 

Complex Case Status Conference

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

As the matter was removed to federal court on November 14, 2016, the Complex Case Status Conference is continued for 60 days to February 2, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. on the Presiding Judge’s Law and Motion calendar.

 



9:00

Line: 2

16-CIV-01763     ARLIN OJEDA vs. REWALK ROBOTICS LTD., et al.

 

 

ARLIN OJEDA                           PHONG TRAN

BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC.               

 

                                     

Complex Case Status Conference

TENTATIVE RULING:  

 

Case is off calendar.  Case in its entirety was dismissed without prejudice on November 2, 2016.  Order dismissing case was signed by Judge Grandsaert on October 28, 2016.

 

 



9:00

Line: 3

CIV537799     MARK MORD VS. VENTANA GROUP LLC

 

 

MARK MORD                             ADAM C. KENT

VENTANA GROUP LLC                     MICHAEL B. SACHS

 

 

Complex Case Status Conference

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Pursuant to the request of Judgment Creditor’s attorney, Adam C. Kent, matter is off calendar.

 



9:00

Line: 4

CIV537965     OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND Retirement SYSTEM VS.

                  SUNEDISON INC.

 

 

OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND Retirement SYSTEM   DENNIS J. HERMAN

EMMANUEL HERNANDEZ

 

 

Complex Case Status Conference

TENTATIVE RULING: 

 

As the matter remains removed to federal court, the Complex Case Status Conference is continued for 60 days, February 2, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. on the Presiding Judge’s Law and Motion calendar.

 

 



9:00

Line: 5

CIV537971     GLENVIEW CAPITAL PARTNERS ET AL. VS. SUNEDISON, INC.

 

 

GLENVIEW CAPITAL OPPORTUNITY FUND, L.P.    DENNIS J. HERMAN

SUNEDISON, INC.

 

 

Complex Case Status Conference

TENTATIVE RULING:  As the matter remains removed to federal court, the Complex Case Status Conference is continued for 60 days, February 2, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. on the Presiding Judge’s Law and Motion calendar

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County