April 25, 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, April 23, 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 528834       PATRICIA HEWLETT, ET AL. VS. SHELTER CREEK

                   CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

 

 

PATRICIA HEWLETT                      PRO/PER

SHELTER CREEK CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION   GRANT H. BAKER

 

 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY SHELTER CREEK CONDOMINIUM OWNERS

 

 

·      Judge Elizabeth Lee ruled on the Demurrer and the Motion for Reconsideration which form the basis for this motion for sanctions.  The Motion should be heard by Judge Lee. Please contact her department at (650)261-5117 to schedule a hearing.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 530664       LAWRENCE A. STERN, ET AL. VS. SOJOURN TO THE PAST

 

 

LAWRENCE A STERN                      DOV M. GRUNSCHLAG

SOJOURN TO THE PAST                   JILL E. FOX

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS AND FURTHER RESPONSES BY SOJOURN TO THE PAST

 

 

·         Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the ground that a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of the issues was not made prior to the filing of the instant motion, as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040 and evidenced by correspondence between the parties’ counsel. 

 

·         Moreover, Plaintiffs assert that certain documents have now been produced, which may moot portions of Defendant’s motion.  Accordingly, the parties are ordered to engage in good-faith efforts to meet and confer before filing a revised motion, if one becomes necessary.

 

·         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

 

 

DEMURRER TO SECOND Amended COMPLAINT BY SOJOURN TO THE PAST

 

 

The Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint (SAC) by Defendant SOJOURN TO THE PAST is SUSTAINED, as follows:

 

  • SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Express Contract and Second Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Contract. 

 

As with the original Complaint, to which demurrer was sustained with leave to amend, the SAC fails to allege sufficient facts to show the existence of a valid obligation on the part of Defendant or the terms of any such agreement.  The alleged contract constitutes a self-interested transaction by Plaintiffs, as members of the Board of Directors,that is illegal and void.  [Corp. Code §§ 5233, 7233, 7238].  In addition, the SAC fails to allege or identify anyone with authority who allegedly acted on behalf of the Defendant corporation to obligate Defendant. [ Corp. Code §§ 5233, 7233, 7238].

 

  • SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Third Cause of Action for Common Counts.  Although the SAC does not specify which “common counts” theory it relies on, Plaintiffs’ Opposition cites to CACI 370, which is for “money had and received”.  The SAC must therefore plead: (1) that Defendant received money that was intended to be used for the benefit of Plaintiffs; (2) that the money was not used for the benefit of Plaintiffs; and (3) that Defendant has not given the money to Plaintiffs. 

 

The SAC does not plead either of the first two elements; indeed Plaintiffs are emphatic that the intent of the alleged transactions was not to personally benefit Plaintiffs.  (SAC ¶ 4.)  Thus, it appears that a common count for money had and received is not appropriate under the facts alleged.

 

Plaintiffs acknowledge that their claim may not fit “conventional contractual relationships”.  (Plaintiffs’ Opposition at 8:10-11.)  Accordingly, Plaintiffs are given leave to amend their complaint to assert a sole cause of action for quantum meruit, which was initially alleged in the original Complaint, and to which demurrer was sustained with leave to amend.   

 

Recovery in quantum meruit does not require the existence of a contract, but does require that the parties had some understanding or expectation that compensation would be made for the services rendered.  In quantum meruit, the law implies a promise to pay for services performed when they were not gratuitously rendered.  [Jogani v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 901; Day v. Alta Bates Medical Center (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 243].  “To recover on a claim for the reasonable value of services under a quantum meruit theory, a plaintiff must establish both that he or she was acting pursuant to either an express or implied request for services from the defendant and that the services rendered were intended to and did benefit the defendant.” [ Ochs v. PacifiCare of California (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 782, 794]. 

 

  • SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Fourth Cause of Action for Equitable Estoppel.  California courts do not recognize an independent cause of action for equitable estoppel. [ See Behnke v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1463 (“a stand-alone cause of action for equitable estoppel will not lie as a matter of law”)].  The Court explained that the doctrine of equitable estoppel “prevents a party from profiting from the detriment he induced another to suffer.  The doctrine acts defensively only.”  [Money Store v. Southern Cal. Bank (2002) 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 58, 65]. 

 

To the extent that this is a claim for promissory estoppel, Plaintiffs’ claim still fails to adequately allege the required elements, which are: (1) a clear promise, (2) reliance, (3) substantial detriment, and (4) damages measured by the extent of the obligation assumed and not performed. [ Poway Royal Mobilehome Owners Ass’n v. City of Poway (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1460, 1471].  In this matter, there is no allegation of a “clear promise” made by anyone at Sojourn with the authority to bind it, as discussed above.

 

  • Plaintiffs shall file their Third Amended Complaint, should they elect to do so, within 15 days of receipt of notice of entry of order.

 

 

  • 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

3

CIV 531379       BANC OF AMERICA LEASING & CAPITAL, LLC.VS. TPR

                 HOLDINGS, LLC.

 

 

BANC OF AMERICA LEASING & CAPITAL     KEVIN P. WHITEFORD

TPR HOLDINGS, LLC.

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND TO DISMISS ACTION BY TPR HOLDINGS, LLC.

 

 

·         Moot. Action was dismissed on April 13, 2015.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 531458       MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. MILLS PENINSULA HOSPITAL

                   ET AL.

 

 

MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY              COLMAN E. RAMSEY

MILLS PENINSLA HOSPITAL               KIM HARA

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FILED BY MILLS PENINSLA HOSPITAL, ET AL.

 

 

·         Moot. A First Amended Complaint was filed on April 21, 2015.

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BY MILLS PENINSLA HOSPITAL

 

 

·         See above.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 531788       ASHLEIGH CHAND VS. JUNK KING FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC.,

                   ET AL.

 

 

ASHLEIGH CHAND                        PRO/PER

JUNK KING FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC.     RICHARD M. KELLY

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES BY JUNK KING FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.

 

 

  • Defendant's Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses and for Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to insufficient notice.  The proof of service indicates this Motion was served by mail and e-mail on March 30, 2015.  Service on March 30 did not provide the required 16 court days notice +5 additional calendar days for mail (CCP §1005(b)).  Nor did service on March 30 provide the required 16 court days notice +2 additional court days for service by e-mail (CCP §1010.6(a) (4)) as March 31 was a court holiday.  In addition, there is no indication that plaintiff has agreed to accept service electronically (CCP §1010.6(a)(2)).

 

  • 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

6

CLJ 443475       FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY VS. REGINALD P. JEAN-

                   BAPTISTE

 

 

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY             ROBERT SCOTT KENNARD

REGINALD P. JEAN-BAPTISTE

 

 

MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT BY REGINALD P. JEAN-BAPTISTE

 

 

  • Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452(d).

 

  • Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment is DENIED for noncompliance with CCP 1005(b) and CRC 3.1112(a).  The motion was filed on April 1, 2015 and plaintiff did not receive the motion until April 10, 2015. Defendant has provided no proof of service as to when the motion was served, but in order for service by mail for hearing on April 23, 2015 it would have to have been served by March 27, 2015. Defendant has failed to establish that he complied with service requirements under CCP §1005 (b). Finally, defendant has provided no authority or grounds on which to vacate the judgment.

 

  • 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

7

CLJ 525815       CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE VS. FREDERICK JOSEPH ARNOLD

 

 

CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE               STANLEY J. MICHAEL

FREDERICK JOSEPH ARNOLD               PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS BY CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE

 

 

  • Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant’s Answers to Form Interrogatories and To Impose Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 2030.290 and 2023.030.

 

  • Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses to the Form Interrogatories, without objection, within 15 days of service of the notice of entry of order.   

 

  • Defendant shall pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $160 within 15 days of service of the notice of entry of order.

 

  • 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

CLJ 528530       MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC. VS. HILDA CASTANEDA

 

 

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC.                 ANTHONY DIPIERO

HILDA CASTANEDA                       PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER THAT MATTERS IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF TRUTH OF FACTS BE ADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT BY MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC.

 

 

  • The Unopposed Motion by Plaintiff Midland Funding, LLC for an Order Deeming Facts Admitted is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2033.280. All of those matters set forth in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, dated November 18, 2014, are hereby deemed admitted. Defendant is order to pay sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $332.50 pursuant to CCP §2023.010 within 10 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order.

 

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

                   ET AL.

 

 

CULLIGAN LT PARTNERS, LP              GINGER L. SOTELO

SCARIA NARITHOOKIL                    KEVIN S. SULLIVAN

 

 

NOTICE OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT DETERMINATION BY SCARIA NARITHOOKIL

 

 

·         The Unopposed Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.  Defendant has complied with the requirements of CCP §877.6(a)(2)and meets the requirements set forth in Tech-Bilt,Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499. The settlement payment amounts to 67% of the damages alleged in the verified complaint.

 

·         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.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

 

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County