September 29, 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

 

Tuesday, September 27, 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-UDL-00105     WORKING DIRT, LLC vs. ROCKY D RAYNOR, et al.

 

 

WORKING DIRT, LLC                     JOANNA KOZUBAL

ROCKY D. RAYNOR                       Pro Se

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and this Court takes judicial notice of Exhibits 1-6 to Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff’s separate statement establishes the elements of an unlawful detainer action under Civil Code section 1161a(b)(3), and Defendant has not shown that there are any material facts in dispute. 

 

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

LineS: 2 & 3

CIV531455     LOUISE AUSTIN VS. 24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC.

 

24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC.             JACK C. NICK

LOUISE AUSTIN                         GEORGE W. ELLARD

 

2. plaintiff’s MOTION REGARDING SCHEDULING EXCPERT CARDIOLOGIST DEPOSITIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion is ordered off calendar due to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal.

 

 

3. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT, JOHN MACGREGOR, M.D.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion is ordered off calendar due to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                             


9:00

Line: 4 & 5

CIV536191     MID-PENINSULA ANIMAL HOSPITAL, INC. VS. SANTA CRUZ

                 AVENUE PROPERTIES, LLC

 

 

MID-PENINSULA ANIMAL HOSPITAL, INC.   PETER C. MCMAHON

SANTA CRUZ AVENUE PROPERTIES, LLC     MARK MCKEEN

 

 

4. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Court has considered the supplemental briefing filed by both sides and rules as follows:

 

Plaintiff Mid-Peninsula Animal Hospital, Inc.’s objections to evidence are sustained as to objections  2, 3, 4 and overruled as to objections 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (objections 11 and 12 were mis-numbered by plaintiff’s counsel).

 

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Santa Cruz Ave. Properties, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to both the complaint and cross-complaint is DENIED. The Defendant has failed to meet its initial burden under CCP  §437 c(p)(2) of demonstrating that the options had expired and that the parties subsequently “amended” or “extended”  the original lease.

 

Because the Defendant has not met its initial burden, the burden does not shift to the Plaintiff pursuant to CCP §437c(p)(2).

 

The Court considers this dispute as not amenable to resolution by Summary Judgment motion. The court would need to hear testimony from the parties as to the expiration of the original lease, the expiration of the first five year option, the negotiations over the Second Addendum, the drafting of that agreement, the parties’ mutual intent at the time of contracting, etc.

 

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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20. 

 

 

5. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court has considered the supplemental briefing filed by both sides and rules as follows:

 

Plaintiff Mid-Peninsula Animal Hospital, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the complaint and cross-complaint is DENIED. The plaintiff has not met its initial burden under CCP §437c(p)(1). The Plaintiff has failed to establish that they exercised an option through the Second Addendum to the lease and that the option they exercisedf was the first option, leaving them with a second option yet to exercise.

 

Because the Plaintiff has not met its initial burden, the burden does not shift to the defendant pursuant to CCP §437c(p)(1).

 

The Court considers this dispute as not amenable to resolution by Summary Judgment motion. The court would need to hear testimony from the parties as to the expiration of the original lease, the expiration of the first five year option, the negotiations over the Second Addendum, the drafting of that agreement, the parties’ mutual intent at the time of contracting, etc.

 

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 Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20. 

 

 



9:00

Line: 6

CIV536615     JEFFERY JORDAN VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC

 

 

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC             ROGER S. RAPHAEL

JEFFERY JORDAN                        JASON CUTLER

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion of Plaintiff Jeffrey Jordan (“Plaintiff”) to Compel Further  Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, from Defendant BMW of North America, LLC (“Defendant”), is ordered off calendar in light of the Notice of Settlement of Entire Case filed with the court on August 31, 2016.

 



9:00

Line: 7

CIV537740     JOSE VERDUSCO VS. ANDY MAR, ET AL.

 

 

JOSE VERDUSCO                         TODD P. EMANUEL

ANDY MAR                              GRANT A. WINTER

 

 

MOTION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW AND PRODUCTION OF DEFENDANT PEACE OFFICER ANDY MAR'S PERSONNEL RECORDS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The matter will be heard at 9:00 a.m. on the Master Calendar.

 



9:00

Line: 8

CLJ538381     MIDLAND FUNDING LLC VS. RENATO BAARDE

 

 

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC                   PATRICK T. SULLIVAN

RENATO BAARDE                         FRED W. SCHWINN

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant Renato Baarde’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories [Set 1] is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2030.290.  

 

Defendant Renato Baarde’s’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses  to Request for Production of Documents [Set 1], is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2031.260.

 

Plaintiff Midland Funding, LLC shall provide verified responses without objection to the Special Interrogatories (Set 1) and the Request for Production of Documents (Set One) within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order. Plaintiff’s failure to provide timely responses to the discovery results in a waiver of all objections are waived. CCP §§2030.290(a), 2031.260(a).

 

Defendant Renato Baarde’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §§2023010, 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) in the amount of $1,340.00.

 

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

 


 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County