April 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 susan irene etezadi

Department 18

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2M

 

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

 

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

1

CIV 441924       ANNEMARIE REDMOND VS. GREGORY KELSEY, ET AL.

 

 

ANNEMARIE REDMOND                     ROBERT N. WEAVER

GREGORY L. KELSEY                     MARC D. BENDER

 

 

MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT BY ANNEMARIE REDMOND

 

Defendant Gregory Kelsey’s Request for Judicial Notice is Granted pursuant to Evidence Code §452(d), (h).

 

Plaintiff Annemarie Redmond’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement pursuant to CCP §664.6 is GRANTED. The requirements of CCP §664.6 have been satisfied.

 

Judgment for Plaintiff is entered in the amount of $334,156.09, with interest and a penalty accruing until the property is sold and Plaintiff is paid in full. The court orders the real property located at 5 Woodbridge Court, Redwood City to be listed for sale with Steven Lessard of Alain Pinel Realtors pursuant to paragraph 6 of the amended settlement agreement dated June 28, 2007. The property should be listed at an initial sales price of $3,295,000.

 

The court is not ordering the Defendant to return the Plaintiff’s name to the title of the property. A motion pursuant to CCP §664.6 is limited to the issues to which the parties had stipulated to in writing or orally before the court. Matters outside the settlement agreement will not be ordered in a motion to enforce the settlement. Datatronic Sys. Corp. v. Speron (1986) 176 Cal App 3d 1168, 1171-75. The issue of title is not part of either the original settlement or amended settlement agreement. It is part of a written “Understanding” between the parties on June 8, 2012 which specifically states in its written provisions that it has no effect on the amended stipulation for settlement dated June 28, 2007.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 528837       G.W. WILLIAMS CO. VS. PETER A. JOHNSON

 

 

G.W. WILLAIMS CO.                        THOMAS CAUDILL

PETER A. JOHNSON

 

 

MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF EARNINGS WITHHOLDING ORDER AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR'S SPOUSE BY G.W. WILLAIMS CO.

 

Plaintiff G. W. Williams Co.’s unopposed Motion for an Earnings Withholding Order on non-judgment-debtor spouse is DENIED without prejudice.  Plaintiff has established that Erma Corazon Johnson is the judgment debtor’s spouse.

 

CCP §706.102(a) allows a judgment creditor to apply for an earnings withholding order only if a writ of execution has been issued in the last 180 days, in the county where the debtor’s employer is to be served. The Plaintiff has not shown that a writ of execution has been issued in this case within the past 180 days.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 528860      ROSEMARY N. CHUKWUDEBE VS. CHRISTOPHER PIRRONE, ET AL.

 

 

ROSEMARY N. CHUDWUDEBE                PRO/PER

CHRISTOPHER PIRRONE                   CHRISTOPHER PIRRONE

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY ROSEMARY N. CHUDWUDEBE

 

 

Plaintiff Rosemary Chukwudebe’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication is continued on the court’s own motion to June 28, 2016. The court takes this action due to the ongoing dispute among the parties over the plaintiff’s deposition.

 

On January 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication as to defendant Steve Gohari. This motion was filed after Judge Ayoob had taken a similar motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication as to Defendant AOE Law firm off calendar because the Defendants had never been able to depose the Plaintiff. Neither Defendant has been able to depose the Plaintiff. Both Defendants have motions for terminating sanctions pending on May 19, 2016 based in large part on the Plaintiff’s failure to appear for her deposition. Because Defendant Gohari has been denied an opportunity to depose the Plaintiff, it would be patently unfair to proceed with the summary judgment/summary adjudication motion against Defendant Gohari. Consequently, the summary judgment motion against him is continued to enable all parties to depose the Plaintiff or to have their motions for terminating sanctions heard [those motions are based on the plaintiff’s repeated failure to appear for a properly noticed deposition].

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 530285       RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER, ET AL. VS. FARIN NAMDARAN

                   YEGANEH

 

 

RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER                 AMANDA FITZSIMMONS

FARIN NAMDARAN YEGANEH                DANIEL L. CASAS

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM RAMIN YEGANEH TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, AND FOR SANCTIONS BY RENEE GLOVER CHANTLER, ET AL.

 

The motion to compel is continued to May 26, 2016 pursuant to an ex parte order of April 13, 2016. 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 533509       ANDRE OSIPOV VS. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., ET AL.

 

 

ANDRE OSIPOV                             CHARLES T MARSHALL

CAPITAL ONE, N.A.                        LASZLO LADI

 

 

DEMURRER TO THIRD Amended COMPLAINT of OSIPOV BY MTC FINANCIAL, INC.

 

Defendant MTC FINANCIAL, INC. dba TRUSTEE CORPS (“TRUSTEE CORPS”)’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is OVERRULED as to Plaintiff’s sole cause of action for wrongful foreclosure.  Defendant is ordered to file its Answer to the Complaint no later than May 6, 2016.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 534504       GEORGE HASHIMOTO, III VS, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

                   TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)

 

 

GEORGE HASHIMOTO III                     THOMAS A. NURIS

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DAVID GOSSAGE

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 

Defendant State of California’s unopposed Motion to Compel Response to Request for Statement of Damages , Form Interrogatories [Set 1] is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §§425.11 and 2030.290(a).2024.020(a).  Plaintiff shall provide complete and verified responses without objection within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order. Plaintiff shall also pay defendant $500 in monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §2023.030. The sanction shall also be paid within 15 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order.

 

Defendant State of California’s unopposed motion to compel responses to Request for Names and Addresses of Collateral Source Payment Providers is denied without prejudice. The defendant has cited no authority in its motion that would compel such discovery.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 535494       HETTY KAN TULLOSS VS. MILLS-PENISULA HEALTH SERVICES

 

 

HETTY KAN TULLOSS                     WILLIAM B. TULLOSS

MILLS-PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES       JAHMAL T. DAVIS

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRST Amended COMPLAINT of TULLOSS BY MILLS-PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES

 

Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

 

The Second Amended Complaint does not run afoul of the sham pleading rule. The pleading does not omit the earlier allegation that Plaintiff resigned because of excessive overtime or additional responsibilities; it repeats those allegations. The present pleading supplements those allegations to allege that the excessive overtime and additional responsibilities purportedly violated a public policy.

 

The Second Amended Complaint fails to allege facts demonstrating that intolerable conditions constituted a violation of public policy for purposes of constructive discharge. In determining whether a public policy can give rise to a claim for wrongful termination, the public policy must be “carefully tethered to fundamental policies that are delineated in constitutional or statutory provisions.” (Gantt v. Sentry Ins., (1992) 1 Cal. 4th 1083, 1095.) To “delineate” means “... to describe in detail, esp. with sharpness or vividness;” “to describe, portray, or set forth with accuracy or in detail. . . . [A] constitutional or statutory provision must sufficiently describe the type of prohibited conduct to enable an employer to know the fundamental public policies that are expressed in that law.” (Sequoia Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1993)  13 Cal.App.4th 1472, 1480.)

 

Plaintiff alleges the existence of federal and state regulations that refer generally to “personnel standards,” “sufficient staff,” and “sufficient number of laboratory personnel.” (SAC ¶ 132 [citing Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 1220(b) & 1223(a)]; ¶¶ 39, 42, 45, 146, 148, 149 [citing 22 CCR §70245(c); ¶¶ 42, 44, 45, 47, 146, 150 [citing 17 CCR § 1066(c).) These regulations and statutes contain no specifics concerning retention of personnel or imposition of work hours. Nothing in the regulations or statutes provides notice to an employer what quantity of “excessive overtime” or “additional duties” would constitute a violation of public policy.

 

Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant subjected her to an intolerable work environment in retaliation for engaging in any protected conduct or that the imposition of excessive overtime or additional responsibilities violates any public policy. The complaint fails to state a cause of action. 

 

Plaintiff is granted leave of court until May 9, 2016, to file an amended complaint alleging a recognized public policy that could support a claim for constructive termination. This shall be Plaintiff’s final opportunity to amend.

      

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

      _____________________________________________________________________


9:00

8

CIV 536319    FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. 400

                 CONVENTION WAY, LLC

 

 

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY  SCOTT HAMMEL

400 CONVENTION WAY, LLC               MICHAEL B. BROWN

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM FIDELITY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY 400 CONVENTION WAY, LLC

 

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Fidelity and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

 

Defendant's motion fails to state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the issues raised by the motion prior to filing the motion. The motion was filed on April 1, 2016, however moving party had granted Plaintiff until April 8, 2016 to supplement its responses to the discovery requests. Defendant failed to "meet and confer" in good faith and await service of Plaintiff’s further discovery responses by April 8, 2016 before filing the motion.

 

The motion is not properly before this Court with regard to the supplemental responses because: (1) the parties have not met and conferred about those responses, and (2) Defendant has not submitted a separate statement of matters in dispute discussing the supplemental responses, in compliance with CRC 3.1345(a)

 

Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

      _____________________________________________________________________


9:00

9

CIV 536982       BUTLER REALTY, LLC VS CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE

                   COMPANY

 

 

BUTLER REALT, LLC                     ALAN H. PACKER

CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY  GARY R. SELVIN

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of BUTLER REALTY, LLC BY CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY

 

 

Pursuant to stipulation of the parties and court order signed on

April 25, 2016, this matter is continued to May 27, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.

      _____________________________________________________________________


9:00

10

CLJ 212264       ACCESS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS FUND TWO, LP VS. RAOUL R.

                   L. SIMPSON, ET AL.

 

 

ACCESS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS FUND TWO, LP   TODD ROTHBARD

RAOUL R. L. SIMPSON

 

 

HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT(UNLAWFUL DETAINER) of ACCESS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS FUND TWO, LP FILED BY VIVIAN CHENG

 

Defendant Vivian Cheng’s Motion to quash is DENIED pursuant to CCP §§410.50, 1174.25. The filing of a Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession shall constitute a general appearance in the action. See CCP §1174.25. After a general appearance, jurisdiction of the court over the parties and the subject matter of an action continue throughout subsequent proceedings in the action. CCP §410.50. Thus a prejudgment claimant cannot specially appear to file a motion to quash.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

11

CLJ 212415       R. TOD SPIEKER VS. SIONE PAUU, ET AL.

 

 

R. TOD SPIEKER                           TODD ROTHBARD

SIONE PAUU                               PHILIP KEITH

 

 

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT FILED BY SIONE PAUU

 

Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §473 (b). Defendant shall file his proposed demurrer to the complaint within five days.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, 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 to 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 Susan Irene Etezadi, Department 18, for the Court’s signature.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


 

 

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

 

Tuesday, April 26, 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

1

CIV 529287      JOSEPH LINDEMUTH VS. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ET AL.

 

 

JOSEPH LINDEMUTH                      SARAH ADELAARS

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC             EDWARD R. BUELL

 

 

STIPULATION AND MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DEADLINES BY OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ET AL.

 

 

·         Based on the stipulation of counsel and for good cause, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Continue Trial.  The trial date of June 6, 2016 is vacated and reset to November 28, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.  The mandatory settlement conference set for May 27, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. is vacated and reset for November 10, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.  All discovery deadlines will reset based on the new trial date.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County