March 29, 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

 

Tuesday, March 24, 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 513147       FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY VS. ROBERT BRANZUELA,

                   ET AL.

 

 

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY       PATRICK REIDER

ROBERT BRANZUELA                      PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION: (1) TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF ROBERT BRANZUELA; (2) TO CONTINUE THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE AND (3) FOR SANCTIONS BY AMERICAN BUDDHIST CULTURAL SOCIETY

 

 

·         The Court admonishes American Buddhist Cultural Society’s counsel for noncompliance with CRC Rule 3.1110(f) (requiring hard tabs between exhibits) regarding the Declaration of Alan Ouellette. The Court directs Counsel to comply with Rule 3.1110(f) in all subsequent motions in all matters before the court.

 

·         The unopposed Motion to Compel Cross-defendant Robert Branzuela to appear for deposition is GRANTED.

 

·         The Motion to Compel Cross-defendant Robert Branzuela to Produce Documents at Deposition is DENIED. The Motion fails to set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the production.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).)

 

·         The Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. A motion for sanctions must include “a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.040.) The supporting declaration of Alan Ouellette does not set forth any facts or amount requested.

 

·         Moving party ABCS has withdrawn its Motion for Order Extending the deadline filing a dispositive motion. 

 

·         Cross-defendant Robert Branzuela is ordered to appear for deposition in accordance with the Notice of Deposition served on January 14, 2015 (original deposition date of January 27, 2015). The deposition shall occur on a date agreed between the parties, but no later than April 3, 2015, unless ABCS agrees to a later date. 

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for American Buddhist Cultural Society shall 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 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

2

CIV 524677       STANLEY BLUMENFELD, ET AL. VS. DAVID BELLEVILLE

 

 

STANLEY BLUMENFELD                    D.D. HUGHMANICK

DAVID BELLEVILLE                      SIMON OFFORD

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, SPEICAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; FORM INTERROGATORIES SET ONE; SPECAL INTERROGATORIES SET TWO; REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET TWO (AMENDED); AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY STANLEY BLUMENFELD, ET AL.

 

 

 

 

                             SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

 

 

  • The Motion as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 13, 25, Set No. 2 – 2, 14, 26, 38 & 50 is GRANTED.

 

  • The Motion as to Special Interrogatories (Nos. 2, 14, 26, Set No. 2 – 3, 15, 27, 39 & 51 is GRANTED.

 

  • The Motion as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 3, 15, 27, Set No. 4, 16, 28, 40 & 52 is GRANTED.

 

  • The Motion as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 4, 16, 28,  Set No. 2 – 5, 17, 29, 41 & 53 is GRANTED.

 

  • The Motion as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 5, 17 29  Set No. 2 – 6, 18, 30, 42 & 54 is GRANTED.

 

  • The Motion as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 6, 18, 30  Set No. 2 -  7, 19, 31, 43 & 55 is GRANTED.

 

  • The Motion as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 7, 19, 31  Set No. 2 – 8, 20, 32, 44 & 56 is GRANTED.

 

  • The Motion as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 8, 20, 32  Set No. 2 – 9, 21, 33, 45 & 57 is DENIED

 

  • The Motion as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 9, 21, 33  Set No. 2 – 10, 22, 34, 46 & 58 is DENIED.

 

  • The Motion as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 10, 22, 34  Set No. 2 – 11, 23, 35, 47 & 59; and, 11, 23, 35  Set No. 2 – 12, 24, 36, 48 & 60; and,12, 14  Set No. 2 – 1, 13, 25, 37 & 49 is GRANTED.

 

 

 

 

              FORM INTERROGATORIES

 

 

  • The Motion as to Form Interrogatories Nos. 50.1, 50.4 and 50.6 is GRANTED; the Motion as to Nos. 50.3 and 50.5 is DENIED.

 

 

 

 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

 

 

  • The Motion as to the Requests for Production Nos. 1 & 2 and Amended Request No. 1 is GRANTED only to the extent that Defendant’s further responses to the Interrogatories identify documents.

 

  • With respect to privacy issues the Court notes that there is a compelling state interest in ensuring that those injured by the actionable conduct of others receive full redress of those wrongs; there is also a compelling state interest in making certain that parties comply with properly served subpoenas and discovery orders in order to disclose relevant information to the fullest extent allowable.  These considerations outweigh any privacy issues raised herein.

 

  • Request for sanctions is DENIED.

 

  • 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 525079       MELODY SIMMONS-HUDSON VS. GENENTECH, INC.

 

 

MELODY SIMMONS-HUDSON                 MURLENE J. RANDLE

GENENTECH, INC.                       LYNNE C. HERMLE

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY GENENTECH, INC.

 

 

·         Continued to April 10, 2015 by motion of the Court.

 

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 527288       SHELLY KUDROV VS. PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION,                 

                  ET AL.

 

 

SHELLY KUDROV                            BRIAN K. HILLARD

PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY WITH REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY DAVID ELLISON, MD.

 

 

  • The unopposed motion to compel discovery is GRANTED.  Plaintiff shall provide verified responses to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents as well as a statement of damages, without objections, no later than April 7, 2015.

 

  • The request for sanctions is also GRANTED.  Plaintiff shall pay defendant $660 no later than April 7, 2015.

 

  • 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

5

CIV 527708       GARY RICHARD SALETTA, ET AL. VS. TDM TILING, INC.      

                   ET AL.

 

 

GARY RICHARD SALETTA                  MICHAEL C. MILLER

TDM TILING, INC.                      KEVIN P. MCCARTHY

 

 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CLJ531027 WITH CIV527708 BY GARY

RICHARD SALETTA, ET AL.

 

 

  • The unopposed Motion to Consolidate Actions CIV527708 and CLJ 531027 for All Purposes is GRANTED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1048.  Consolidation of these cases will promote judicial economy and efficiency of the litigation between the parties.  CIV527708 is designated the lead case.

 

 

  • The moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the court's tentative ruling for the court's signature, pursuant to CRC 3.1312, and to provide notice thereof to opposing party/counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND ORDER FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AFTER HEARING AS TO ANTHONY JOHN DELLA MORTE BY GARY RICHARD SALETTA, ET AL.

 

 

·         Continued to April 28, 2015 by stipulation of the parties.

 

 

APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND ORDER FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AFTER HEARING AS TO TDM TILING, INC. BY GARY RICHARD SALETTA, ET AL.

 

 

·         Continued to April 28, 2015 by stipulation of the parties.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 531873       JANE DOE II VS DANIELLE CHETRIT ET AL

 

 

JANE DOE I                            JIM ERICKSON

DANIELLE CHETRIT

 

 

MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 425.16 BY DANIELLE CHETRIT, JACQUES CHETRIT, CAROLE CHETRIT

 

 

  • The Special Motion to Strike pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 brought by Defendant DANIELLE CHETRIT, and the concurrent Special Motion to Strike by Defendants CAROLE CHETRIT AND JACQUES CHETRIT, are GRANTED.

 

·         Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(b)(1) provides: “A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”

 

·         Section 425.16(b)(2) further states, “In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.”

 

·         A defendant specially moving to strike has the burden to show that the conduct underlying a cause of action arises from protected activity.  [City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 79].  Once this has been established, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim. [ Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 958, 965].  To do so, the plaintiff must show that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence is credited. [ Id.]

 

·         Section 425.16(e) describes four categories of conduct that constitute protected activity under the statute, including “(3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or (4) any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” [ Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(3)-(4)]. 

 

·         “Commenting on a matter of public concern is a classic form of speech that lies at the heart of the First Amendment.” [ Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network (1997) 519 U.S. 357, 377].  With the anti-SLAPP statute, “any issue in which the public takes an interest is of ‘public interest’.”  [Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1039].  Courts have found that on-air, public discussion of matters of public concern are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. [ Ingels v. Westwood One Broadcasting Services, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1064]. 

 

·         In the present case, Defendants have demonstrated that Danielle’s participation in a radio interview discussing the topic of bullying, and in particular a recent study regarding the bullying of “popular” students, is protected activity.  Danielle was contributing to a discussion regarding a matter of public concern, by providing a first-hand account of how a popular bully at her school had the tables turned on her.  Notably, Danielle did not give her last name, did not identify her school, and did not disclose DOE I’s name or any identifying information.  

 

·         The burden then shifts to Plaintiffs to demonstrate the probability of prevailing on their claims.  Plaintiffs’ Opposition fails to meet their evidentiary burden, as no evidence was submitted.  Instead, Plaintiffs argue that this case should not be determined in a summary fashion, and that they should be permitted to conduct discovery into their claims so that they can dismiss any causes of action that end up being unsupported by the evidence.

 

·         The motions are therefore granted.  The purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute is “to nip SLAPP litigation in the bud”, by quickly disposing of claims that target the exercise of free speech rights. [ Braun v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1042].  Plaintiffs are not permitted to continue on in this litigation given that Defendants have demonstrated that the claims arise out of protected activity, and Plaintiffs have made no showing of the probability of prevailing on their claims.

 

·         Moving parties are 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.

 

 

 

HEARING: MOTION RE: SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PER CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE 425.16 BY DANIELLE CHETRIT, JACQUES CHETRIT, CAROLE

CHETRIT

 

 

·         See above.

 

 

 

HEARING: MOTION RE: MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AS "JANE DOE

I" AND "JANE DOE II"; MEMORANDUM BY JANE DOE I, JANE DOE II

 

 

 

·         Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Anonymously is MOOT in light of the holding above.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 531976       ZENAT JOUDIEH, ET AL. VS. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,       

                  ET AL.

 

ZENAT JOUDIEH                         SARAH ADELAARS

BANK OF AMERICA NA                    TIM G CEPERLEY

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT BY BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

 

 

  • The request for judicial notice by defendant Bank of America is granted.

 

  • The demurrer by defendant Bank of America on the ground that the cause of action for breach of contract fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.  Plaintiffs failed to (1) sufficiently set out the contract verbatim (in haec verba) in the body of the complaint or attaching a copy or plead the contract’s legal effect or (2) allege their performance or excuse for nonperformance.  The court declines to find that, as a matter of law, the contract is unambiguous and/or not reasonably susceptible to the interpretation which plaintiffs have alleged. [Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp.(2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 97; Marina Tenants Assn. v. Deauville Marina Dev. Co. (1986)181 Cal. App. 3d 122, 128; Aragon-Haas v. Family Sec. Ins. Servs., Inc. (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 232, 239].

 

  • The demurrer on the ground that the cause of action for breach of contract is uncertain is OVERRULED.

 

  • Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint, should they elect to do so, no later than April 8, 2015.

 

  • Moving attorney 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 Joseph C Scott, Department 25.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

8

CLJ 519569       CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. VS. RENEE A. HIRSCH

 

 

CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA) NA             ROBERT SCOTT KENNARD

RENEE A HIRSCH                        PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING TERMINATING SANCTION AND REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGEMENT BY CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.

 

 

·         The unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Request for Entry of Default Judgment by Plaintiff Capital One Bank is GRANTED.  Defendant’s answer is stricken and Defendant’s default is entered.

 

·         Request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

 

·         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 523622       RAZOR CAPITAL, LLC. VS. ESTELA MORENO

 

 

RAZOR CAPITAL, LLC.                   ROBERT SCOTT KENNARD

ESTELA MORENO                         PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING TERMINATING SANCTION AND REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY RAZOR CAPITAL, LLC.

 

 

 

  • The unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions by Plaintiff Razor Capital LLC is GRANTED.  Defendant’s Answer is stricken and Defendant’s default is entered.

 

  • Request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

 

  • 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

10

CLJ 531027       HOMER T. HAYWARD LUMBER CO. VS. GARY R. SALETTA

 

 

HOMER T. HAYWARD LUMBER CO.           RICHARD J. GREENE

GARY RICHARD SALETTA                  MICHAEL C. MILLER

 

 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS FOR ALL PURPOSES CLJ 531027 WITH CIV 527708 BY GARY RICHARD SALETTA

 

 

  • The unopposed Motion to Consolidate Actions CIV527708 and CLJ 531027 for All Purposes is GRANTED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1048.  Consolidation of these cases will promote judicial economy and efficiency of the litigation between the parties.  CIV527708 is designated the lead case.

 

 

  • The moving party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the court's tentative ruling for the court's signature, pursuant to CRC 3.1312, and to provide notice thereof to 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.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:01

11

CLJ 210600       NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC. VS. VICTORIA ALVARADO,                                  

                   ET AL.

 

 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC.             ERIC G. FERNANDEZ

VICTORIA ALVARADO                     MARC D. BENDER

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC.

 

 

·         The Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC is GRANTED.  Plaintiff has established the essential elements of its unlawful detainer action: (1) that the subject Property was sold in accordance with Civil Code § 2924 and that title was duly perfected; (2) that the requisite three-day notice to quit was served on Defendants VICTORIA ALVARADO and LUIS ALVARADO; and (3) Defendants held over and continued in possession for more than three days after the three-day notice was served. [ Code Civ. Proc. § 1161a; Stephens, Partain & Cunningham v. Hollis (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 948, 952].

 

·         Plaintiff is granted immediate possession of the premises located at 24 Robert Place, Millbrae, CA 94030.  The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue a writ of possession directing the Sheriff to take all legal steps necessary to remove Defendants ALVARADO and all occupants from the Property, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 415.46. 

 

·         Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to Exhibit 1.  The request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 2 and 3 is GRANTED insofar as the Summons and Complaint as well as Answer were filed in this action, but not as to the truth of any matters asserted therein.

 

·         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.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________


 

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, March 24, 2015

 

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 505103       DAVID KAROW VS. CARMEN MENDOZA-MADRIGAL, ET AL.

 

 

DAVID KAROW                           JOSHUA HENDERSON

CARMEN MENDOZA-MADRIGAL               MARK C. RASKOFF

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL BY CARMEN MENDOZA-MDARIGAL

 

·         Motion for Order Continuing Trial is DENIED.

 

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 525818       JANE DOE VS. HAPPY HALL SCHOOL, ET AL.

 

 

JANE DOE                              MICHAEL BRACAMONTES

HAPPY HALL SCHOOL                     ALISON M. CRANE

 

 

MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE BY HAPPY HALL SCHOOL, ET AL.

 

 

·         For good cause shown, the Motion to Continue the Trial Date is GRANTED.  The current jury trial date of May 26, 2015 is VACATED, and a new jury trial date of July 13, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. is set.  Discovery deadlines will reset based on new trial date.  Defendant to provide notice of this order to all parties.

 

 


 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:15 PM

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County