July 24, 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 john l. grandsaert

Department 11

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2D

 

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

 

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-00185     TOMMY T. WINSTON vs. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.

 

 

TOMMY T. WINSTON                       ROMEL AMBARCHYAN

MTC FINANCIAL INC.                     KATHERINE MINER

 

 

HEARING ON DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB’s Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.  Plaintiff’s sole cause of action for quiet title is sufficiently alleged.  Defendant is ordered to file its Answer to the TAC on or before August 15, 2017. 

 

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to Exhibits A, D, and E pursuant to Evid. Code § 452.  Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to Exhibits B and C, but only to establish that they were filed in Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case, not as to the truth of any matters asserted therein.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

 



9:00

Line: 2

16-CIV-00858     ELAINE RYZAK FRASER vs. MICHELLE L DOMINICI, et al.

 

 

ELAINE RYZAK FRASER                     ALLISON DUNDAS

MICHELLE L. DOMINICI                    PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR ISSUE AND MONETARY SANCTION

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Terminating Sanction is GRANTED pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §§2023.030, 2030.300(e) and 2031.310(i).  Defendant’s answer is hereby stricken.  The evidence establishes that defendant failed to provide sufficient discovery responses, failed to comply with a court order compelling further responses and failed to oppose this motion or otherwise demonstrate her willingness to comply with her discovery obligations. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

 



9:00

Line: 3

16-CLJ-00532     STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPAY vs.

                     DIEGO DE LA OLIVA, et al.

 

 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPAY     RICHARD L. MAHFOUZ

DIEGO DE LA OLIVA                                ALSTON LEW

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED.  There is a public policy in favor of permitting amendments (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920), and defendant has not established that he will suffer any prejudice from the proposed amendment. 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff State Farm shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

 



9:00

Line: 4

17-CIV-02320     IN RE D. SPENCER

 

 

BOISE HEIGHTS CORPORATION               EUGENE A. AHTIRSKI

 

 

MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR TRANSFER OF STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PAYMENT RIGHTS PURSUANT TO CA INSURANCE CODE 10134

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Per order filed 7/24/17, Motion for Approval has been continued to August 16, 2017 at 9:00A.M. on Law and Motion calendar. 

 



9:00

Line: 5

17-CIV-02696     SOCOCO, INC. vs. CHRIS WHEELER

 

 

SOCOCO, INC.                           RICHARD F. MUNZINGER

CHRIS WHEELER                          BRIAN D. LIDDICOAT

 

 

WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff Sococo, Inc.  having notified the Court on Friday, July 21, 2017 that it is withdrawing its pending Application for Attachment in the above-referenced action, without prejudice to refile at a later date, this matter is dropped from calendar.

 



9:00

Line: 6

17-CLJ-02128     MIDLAND FUNDING LLC. vs. PAULA PACO, et al.

 

 

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC.                    DEANNA FRASER

PAULA VARONA                           KARI RUDD

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Court has received Plaintiff Midland Funding’s Notice of Settlement of Entire Case, filed July 5, 2017.  Accordingly, this Motion to Quash is dropped from calendar. 

 



9:00

Line: 7

17-UDL-00498     JERI EZNEKIER, TRUSTEE OF THE GOLD SURVIVOR'S TRUSTEE U/T/A DATED MAY 12, 1981 AS TO AN INDIVIDED 50% INTEREST, et al vs.

                    ROBERT GRUDZIEWSKI, et al

 

 

JERI EZNEKIER                          TODD ROTHBARD

ROBERT GRUDZIEWSKI                     SEAN P. RILEY

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION ON ORAL EXAMINATION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Court admonishes Plaintiffs and their counsel, the Law Offices of Todd Rothbard, for violating Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f) [requiring hard tabs between exhibits] regarding the Decl. of Jedidiah Dooley, which includes voluminous exhibits without tabs, making it burdensome for the Court to review the documents.  Plaintiffs and their counsel are directed to comply, henceforth, with all California Rules of Court and Local Rules.

 

Defendant Robert Grudenski’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Deposition on Oral Examination and Production of Documents is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, as follows:

 

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED-IN-PART.  In general, while the Court agrees some of the Requests are overbroad, most are permissible.  Plaintiffs’ relevancy objection, for the most part, lacks merit.  While this is a limited civil case, discovery is still reasonably broad.  The “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standard is applied liberally, with any doubt generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery; admissibility at trial is not required.  Here, Defendant’s Answer to the UD Complaint asserts, as an affirmative defense, the existence of an oral lease/agreement, dating back to 2000, pursuant to which Defendant was purportedly promised a right to live on the premises for life in exchange for providing services to Ms. Gold.  Plaintiffs’ Statute of Frauds argument has not yet been adjudicated, and thus is not grounds to limit discovery.  Plaintiffs’ undue burden argument, asserted as to almost every Request, rings somewhat hollow given that Plaintiffs apparently have produced a total of 26 pages of documents, which appears evasive and deficient.  Plaintiffs shall produce additional documents as follows:   

 

RFP 1 (all documents from 1993 relating to Defendant):  The Request is overbroad as to time.  Plaintiffs shall produce all un-privileged, responsive documents from 2000 to the present.  There has been no showing such documents are overly voluminous or create an undue burden.   

RFP 2 (all documents supporting the allegations in any pleadings):  The Request is overbroad.  Plaintiffs’ response is sufficient. 

RFP 3 (all documents from 1993 regarding construction, maintenance, or other work on the premises):  The Request is overbroad as to time.  Plaintiffs shall produce all un-privileged, responsive documents from 2000 to the present.  There has been no showing such documents are overly voluminous or create an undue burden.   

RFP 4 (termination notices):  Plaintiffs’ response is sufficient. 

RFP 5 (all documents relating to building or other inspections):  The documents do not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Plaintiffs’ response is sufficient.  

RFP 6 (all notices issued by any governmental agency):  The documents do not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Plaintiffs’ response is sufficient.   

RFP 7 (documents regarding fair market value):  Plaintiffs agreed to produce all documents relating to the rental value.  The response is sufficient. 

RFP 8 (communications from 1993 to the present made by Jan Gold regarding or concerning Robert Grudenski):  The Request is overbroad as to time.  Plaintiffs shall produce all un-privileged, responsive documents from 2000 to the present.  There has been no showing such documents are overly voluminous or create an undue burden.   

RFP 9 (communications or writings made by Jeri Eznekier or others from 1993 to the present regarding or concerning Robert Grudenski):   The Request is overbroad as to time.  Plaintiffs shall produce all un-privileged, responsive documents from 2000 to the present.  There has been no showing such documents are overly voluminous or create an undue burden.   

RFP 10 (from 1993 to the present, documents regarding transfer of any interest in the property):  The Request is overbroad as to time.  Plaintiffs shall produce all un-privileged, responsive documents from 2000 to the present.  There has been no showing such documents are overly voluminous or create an undue burden.  Any privacy concerns are outweighed by the potential relevance.   

RFP 11 (documents showing rent charged from 1993 to the present):  The response indicates no documents have been withheld based on the objections.  The response is sufficient.   

RFP 12 (from 1993 to the present, communications among Defendant, Plaintiff Eznekier, and Jan Gold regarding Defendant):  The Request is overbroad as to time.  Plaintiffs shall produce all un-privileged, responsive documents from 2000 to the present.  There has been no showing such documents are overly voluminous or create an undue burden.    

RFP 13 (from 1993 to the present, communications between or among Defendant, Plaintiff Eznekier, and Jan Gold):  The Request is overbroad as to time.  Plaintiffs shall produce all un-privileged, responsive documents from 2000 to the present.  There has been no showing such documents are overly voluminous or create an undue burden.   

RFP 14 (from 1993 to the present, documents regarding care or services Defendant provided for Jan Gold):  The Request is overbroad as to time.  Plaintiffs shall produce all un-privileged, responsive documents from 2000 to the present.  There has been no showing such documents are overly voluminous or create an undue burden.  Any privacy concerns are outweighed by potential relevance.   

RFP 15 (from 1993 to the present, documents relating to Defendant’s residence at the premises):  The Request is overbroad as to time.  Plaintiffs shall produce all un-privileged, responsive documents from 2000 to the present.  There has been no showing such documents are overly voluminous or create an undue burden.     

RFP 16 (from 1993 to the present, actual or draft agreements by or between Defendant, Plaintiff Eznekier, and Jan Gold):  The Request is overbroad as to time.  Plaintiffs shall produce all un-privileged, responsive documents from 2000 to the present.  There has been no showing such documents are overly voluminous or create an undue burden.    

RFP 17 (from 1993 to the present, promises or representations by or between Defendant, Plaintiff Eznekier, and Jan Gold):  The Request is overbroad as to time.  Plaintiffs shall produce all un-privileged, responsive documents from 2000 to the present.  There has been no showing such documents are overly voluminous or create an undue burden.   

RFP 18 (from 1993 to the present, transfers or gifts between Jan Gold and Defendant):  The Request is overbroad as to time.  Plaintiffs shall produce all un-privileged, responsive documents from 2000 to the present.  There has been no showing such documents are overly voluminous or create an undue burden.   

RFP 19 (from 1993 to the present, “statements, summaries, or notes regarding the subject matter of this action”):  The Request is vague and ambiguous.  The response is sufficient.     

RFP 20 (documents regarding Jan Gold’s current residence or location):  Ms. Gold is a witness.  Plaintiffs shall produce documents sufficient to identify her current residence or location.  The privacy objection lacks merit.    

 

Plaintiffs shall produce the above-referenced documents by July 31, 2017.   The production shall include a copy of the Trust, which Defendants contend has been withheld.  Plaintiffs also argue the Requests would encompass medical records, which are privacy protected.  Medical records need not be produced. 

 

Defendant’s Motion to Compel a Further Deposition of Plaintiff is GRANTED.  The parties shall discuss and agree on the date, time, and location for a continued deposition of Plaintiff Ms. Eznekier, not to exceed four (4) hours, during the week of August 1, 2017.  If Plaintiff is unavailable to attend a deposition that week, or needs additional time to locate and produce the documents, Plaintiffs may request a trial continuance (which may be done by Stipulation, ex parte).  Objections at the deposition shall be consistent with this Order.  

 

The Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.  While the Court is granting the Motion in large part, it finds Plaintiffs’ objections were for the most part asserted with substantial justification, and thus sanctions are not warranted.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Defendant Grudenski shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

 



9:00

Line: 8

CIV536118     PEOPLE OF THE STATE, ET AL. VS. THE ALLERGY, ET AL.

 

 

AETNA HEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC            CURTIS S. LEAVITT

ANDREW ENGLER                          NIALL P. MCCARTHY

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is CONTINUED to August 18, 2017 so that it may be heard after the pending Motion to Stay this action calendared for August 4, 2017. 

Plaintiffs shall provide written notice of this continuance to all parties who have appeared in the action.

 



9:00

Line: 9

CIV538492     CALCAP, INC. VS. MICHAEL DAVIS, ET AL.

 

 

CALCAP, INC.                           ADAM SIEGLER

MICHAEL DAVIS                          Pro/PER

 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant Michael Davis’ Motion to Set Aside Orders Granting Motion to Compel and Deeming Issues Admitted Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.300 is GRANTED. The Order of May 22, 2017, deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions (Set One) admitted, is set aside. The deemed admissions are deemed withdrawn.  Defendant Michael Davis’ Responses to Plaintiff Calcap, Inc.’s Request for Admissions (Set One), attached as Ex. A to the Declaration of Nelson W. Goodell in support of Defendant Michael Davis’ Motion to Set Aside Order Deeming Issues Admitted Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300, are deemed and allowed to be substituted as the Defendant’s responses.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Defendant Davis shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

 

 



 

 

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 susan irene etezadi

Department 18

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2L

 

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

 

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

 you must call (650) 261-5118 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-01086     CANYON CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC, et al. vs. ANTONIO R.

                    ALVAREZ, et al

 

CANYON CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC            DAVID M. GRABLE

ANTONIO R. ALVAREZ

 

 

Complex Case Status Conference

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter was removed to Federal Court in September of 2016. The matter has not been remanded to State Court. Therefore, the Complex Case Status Conference is continued approximately 90 days to October 26, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. on the Presiding Judge’s Law and Motion Calendar.

 

 



9:00

Line: 2

CIV537393     DERIC WALINTUKAN VS. SBE ENTERTAINMENT, ET AL.

 

 

WALINTUKAN, DERIC                      LIONEL Z. GLANCY

SBE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC           SEAN P. HANLE

 

 

Complex Case Status Conference

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter was removed to Federal Court in March of 2016. The matter has not been remanded to State Court. Therefore, the Complex Case Status Conference is continued approximately 90 days to October 26, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. on the Presiding Judge’s Law and Motion Calendar.

 


 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County