November 19, 2017
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, November 16, 2017

 

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

 you must call (650) 261-5019 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-01568     CAVALRY SPV I, LLC vs. DAVID CHEN, et al.

 

 

CAVALRY SPV I, LLC                     RANJEET K. BRAR

DAVID CHEN                             PRO/PER

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER: TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION BE DEEMED ADMITTED

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with CCP §2024.020(a) which provides that a party is entitled to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day before the date initially set for trial.

 

While CCP §2024.050 provides that, on the motion of a party, the court may grant leave to have a motion concerning discovery heard close to the initial trial date, plaintiff has not made such a motion.  Nor does it address any of the statutory factors the court is to consider when ruling on a motion under §2024.050.   

 

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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.


9:00

LineS: 2 - 21

16-CIV-02377   CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC. vs. ROSS STORES, INC., et al.

 

 

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.           REUBEN YEROUSHALMI

ROSS STORES, INC.                      THOMAS N. FITZGIBBON

 

 

2.  CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF…

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

3. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN the AMOUNT OF $2,760.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

4. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLAIAND AND TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NUMBER ONE FROM BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

 

 

 

5. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, FROM BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,535.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

 

6. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NUMBER ONE, FROM THE TJX COMPANIES, INC, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNTY OF $2,760.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

 

7. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPELCOMPLIANCE AND TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NUMBER ONE, FROM ROSS STORES, INC.M AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,760.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

 

 

8. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT ROSS STORES, INC. AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,760.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

9. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NUMBER ONE, FROM ROSS STORES, INC., AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,535.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

10. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE AND TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NUMBER ONE FROM BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,760.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

11. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE AND TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NUMBER ONE FROM T.J. MAXX OF CA, LLC, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,760.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

12. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NUMBER ONE FROM THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,535.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

 

13. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY OF TEXX, INC. AND REQUEST FOR M

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

 

14. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE AND TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NUMBER ONE FROM BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,760.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

 

15. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, FROM BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,535.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

16. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE AND TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NUMBER ONE FROM T.J. MAXX OF CA, LLC, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNTY OF $2,760.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

17. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NUMBER ONE FROM THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,535.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

18. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE AND TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NUMBER ONE FROM BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,760.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

19. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NUMBER ONE FROM BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,760.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

20. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 

 

 

21. CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC.’S STATUS AND TO SET PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, FROM BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,535.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The parties are ordered to appear in person or via CourtCall and give the Court an update as to status of the discovery in this case, particularly whether they have been able to resolve any or all discovery issues that are in dispute. 

 

If the discovery is still in dispute, the parties are to inform the court whether the twenty discovery motions are substantially identical such that ruling on one would effectively dispose of another, or if they can be grouped into substantially identical issues.  If not, the parties are to be prepared to reschedule the motions with no more than two motions calendared for any given date.  Additionally, the discovery motions must not be scheduled for more than two days in any given week (in other words, no more than four discovery motions scheduled per week).

 



9:00

Line: 22

16-CIV-02643     ANNEMARIE SCHILDERS vs. KELLY JOE SCHINDELL

                   DELACEY, et al.

 

 

ANNEMARIE SCHILDERS                    ESTER ADUT

KELLY JOE SCHINDELL DELACEY             STEVEN J. SQUILLARIO

 

 

KELLY DELACEY AND SIDEMAN AND BANCROFT LLP’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff ANNEMARIE SCHILDERS’ Further Response to Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) is GRANTED as to Request No. 30. 

 

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s failure to serve a verification with her response to this discovery is tantamount to no response at all.  Steven M. Gerber & Associates v. Eskandarian (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 813, 817.  As a result, Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses, resulting in a waiver of all objections to the discovery, including objections based on attorney-client privilege and attorney work product.  Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).  Plaintiff is ordered to serve a full and complete, verified response, without objections, to Request No. 30 within 30 days of service of the notice of entry of this Order.  

 

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,330.00.  Plaintiff and her counsel, attorney Ester Adut, are ordered to pay this amount within 30 days of service of the notice of entry of this Order. 

 

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: 23

17-CIV-00786     PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, et al. vs. PARSONS

                    TRANSPORTATION GROUP, et al.

 

 

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board   LAUREL E. O'CONNOR

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY              BENNETT J. LEE

 

 

CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AGAINST THE SURETY DEFENDANTS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

On the Court’s own motion, the motion for summary adjudication is continued to December 21, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department. 

 

 



9:00

Line: 24

17-CIV-01753     DRYCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. vs. DEVEL CONSTRUCTION,

                   INC., et al.

 

 

DRYCO CONSTRUCTION, INC.               BRADLEY D. BOSOMWORTH

DEVEL CONSTRUCTION, INC.               PRO/PER

 

 

KB SAN MATEO, LLC’S MOTION TO STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The matter is ordered off-calendar because was withdrawn by the moving party.

 



9:00

Line: 25

17-CIV-02347     JACQUELINE WENDLING vs. PESCADERO APARTMENTS, et al.

 

 

JACQUELINE WENDLING                    NIKOLAUS W. REED 

PESCADERO APARTMENTS                   PRO/PER

 

 

JACQUIELINE WENDLING’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST MH PODELL AND COUNSEL    

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is continued to December 12, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.

 

A motion to compel further responses must include a declaration showing that the parties engaged in a “reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code of Civ. Proc. sect. 2016.040.)  Moving party Plaintiff failed to comply with this requirement.

 

Plaintiff’s initial letter on September 26, 2017, consisted of nothing but the text of the Separate Statement of Disputed Responses in Support of this motion. It ends with a four-day deadline for supplemental responses “or I will be forced to file a motion.” Defendant set forth its positions in a letter dated October 6, 2017. Plaintiff did not respond to the letter until 15 days later, suggesting that Plaintiff’s own four-day deadline was unreasonable and not in good faith.

 

Without ruling on specific responses, the Court notes that some of Defendant’s objections have merit, some do not, and some of the disputes can be fully resolved if the parties stipulate to a protective order.

 

No later than December 5, 2017, or five court days before the continued hearing, Plaintiff and Defendant shall each file and serve a declaration setting forth their meet-and-confer efforts and, if applicable, informing the Court which discovery responses are removed from controversy.

 

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: 26

17-CIV-02711     CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. vs. OPERA

                   MEDIAWORKS ADVERTISER SERVICES, INC, et al.

 

 

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC.            KENNETH J. FREED

OPERA MEDIAWORKS ADVERTISER SERVICES, INC.   JEFFREY M. GALEN

 

 

OPERA MEDIAWORKS ADVERTISER SERVICES, INC. FDBA MOBILE THEORY, INC;

OPERA MEDIA WORKS, LLC; ADCOLONY, INC.

AKA ADCOLONY’S HEARING ON DEMURRER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants failed to file a declaration, as required by CCP §430.41(a)(3), showing that the parties met and conferred 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 December 18, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. 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 fail 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

Line: 27

17-CIV-02783     PATIENT CENTRIC PHARMACY SERVICES, LLC vs. FSDW

                  REDWOOD CITY, LLC, et al.

 

 

PATIENT CENTRIC PHARMACY SERVICES, LLC  RIVKIN, ELENA

FSDW REDWOOD CITY, LLC                 MICHIIELE WESTIIOFF

 

 

FSDW REDWOOD CITY, LLC’S HEARING ON DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant failed to file a declaration, as required by CCP §430.41(a)(3), showing that the parties met and conferred 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 December 18, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. 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 fail 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

Line: 28

17-CIV-04017     SALVATORE SOLINA vs. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE

                   WEST, et al.

 

 

SALVATORE SOLINA                       JOHN P. THYKEN

AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE WEST          MARIA M. LAMPASONA

 

 

AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE WEST’S HEARING ON DEMURRER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Demurrer of Defendant American Medical Response West (“Defendant”) to the Complaint of Plaintiff Salvatore Solina (“Plaintiff”) is OVERRULED. 

 

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.  Plaintiff opposes judicial notice of the San Mateo County’s SMART policy.  (See Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. B.) However, a court may take judicial notice of official acts of a county.  (Cruz v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1131, 1134.)  The court does not take judicial notice of the truth of factual matters which might be deduced from them though.  (Id.)

 

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s negligence claim is subject to MICRA.  However, even if Plaintiff’s claim is subject to MICRA, Defendant has not explained how this claim is barred. Defendant relies on Civil Code section 3333.2, which only imposes limits on the amount of noneconomic damages that may be recovered.   

 

Defendant also contends that Plaintiff’s claim fails because Plaintiff has not alleged facts to support that Defendant and its employee acted with gross negligence, as required by Health and Safety Code sections 1799.106 and 1799.108. In order for the court to determine whether these statutes apply though, the court must make factual determinations that it cannot do on demurrer.   The court further cannot accept the contents of the County’s SMART policy as true to resolve this issue.  (See Cruz, supra at 1134.)

 

Defendant is to file and serve an answer to the Complaint within twenty days of service of the notice of entry of order.

 

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: 29

17-CLJ-02094  CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. vs. NORA I CECILIANO, et al

 

 

CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.            ELIZABETH A. BLEIER

NORA I. CECILIANO                      Pro/PER

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, ETC.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion is granted.  The evidence establishes that defendant was served with requests for admission on July 17, 2017 and that she has failed to provide a response to the discovery.  The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters in the requests for admission are deemed admitted. 

 

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: 30

CIV538012     DAVID C. EBLOVI VS. JESSICA BLAIR, ET AL.

 

 

DAVID C. EBLOVI                        Pro/PER

JESSICA BLAIR                          PRO/PER

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER FOR EARNINGS WITHHOLDING ORDER TO CHARGE SPOUSE WITH CO-SPOUSE’S COMMUNITY DEBT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion filed Sept. 6, 2017 entitled “Motion for Earnings Withholding Order to Charge Spouse With Co-Spouse’s Community Debt” is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  The moving papers filed by attorney Lorna Walker of Sweet & Walker, P.C., including the Notice of Motion, are procedurally defective.  First, they repeatedly identify attorney Walker as counsel for “Plaintiff.”  That is incorrect.  The Petitioner in this case is David Oblovi, who represents himself in pro per.  After reviewing the moving papers, it appears the Sweet & Walker law firm actually represents Real Party in Interest Allan Alifano, which is very confusing, because the Notice of Motion here states:  “TO:  Allan Alifano and to his SPOUSE, Monica Eblovi…”.  The Notice of Motion is misleading, first because Alifano (the apparent moving party) only gives notice of the motion to himself, and second, because Alifano, contrary to what his Notice states, is not Monica Eblovi’s spouse.  In short, the Notice of Motion does not provide proper notice to anyone.    

 

The other papers supporting the motion are equally confusing.  The supporting Declaration of attorney Lorna Walker states that on April 27, 2016, “a judgment was duly entered … in favor of Plaintiff David C. Eblovi and against Defendant David C. Eblovi, for the sum of $57,380.34.”  This, again, is inaccurate in multiple ways.  First, there does not appear to be any judgment entered in favor of David Eblovi, and he is not a defendant in the case.  Further, the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities repeatedly cites code sections that have been repealed (see citations to Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 5120.110), and relies on documents purportedly attached as an “Appendix,” but no Appendix was attached or filed.

 

As to the merits, the Court notes that the moving party has not sufficiently identified authority to add Monica Oblovi’s name to a Writ of Execution as a “Joint Debtor.” (See proposed Order).  The motion appears to concede that there is no clear statutory authorization for doing so (see Motion at 4:16-25), and there is no dispute that Monica Oblovi was not a party to the case.   

 

Petitioner Eblovi’s request for sanctions is DENIED. 

 

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.

 


 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County