July 2, 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 donald j. ayoob

Department 27

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 7B

 

Wednesday, June 29, 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 417277       ALFRED BIANCHI VS. ENRIQUE D. SANTIAGO, ET AL.

 

 

ALFRED BIANCHI                        MARK C. WATSON

ENRIQUE D. SANTIAGO                   KATHLEEN J. MOORHEAD

 

 

PETITION TO STRIKE THE ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT.

 

 

Defendant ENRIQUE D. SANTIAGO’s unopposed, and apparently meritorious, Petition to Strike Abstract of Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Defendant has not filed a Proof of Service of the Court’s ex parte Order Shortening Time, which was issued on June 8, 2016, and has not responded to the Court’s inquiries regarding the same.  As it does not appear that notice was properly given, and unless Defendant shows proof to the contrary, the petition is denied without prejudice. 

 

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

2

CIV 525865       GEORGE K. PLAVJIAN VS. ROSAS INVESTMENT CORP., ET AL.

 

 

GEORGE K. PLAVJIAN                    MARK BRIFMAN

ROSAS INVESTMENT CORP.

 

 

MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER BY MSB HOMES LLC

 

 

This motion is CONTINUED to July 15, 2016 so that it may be heard after the pending motion for relief from default.

 

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 525919    CHARLES TANIGUCHI, ET AL. VS. RESTORATION HOMES, LLC

 

 

CHARLES TANIGUCHI                     JESSICA GALLETTA

RESTORATION HOMES, LLC                JONATHAN M. ZAK

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY FCI LENDER SERVICES

 

The Defendant FCI Lender Services, Inc.’s Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint’s ¶ 58 and prayer for damages ¶ 7, for punitive damages against moving defendant is GRANTED. The First Amended Complaint has not pleaded sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive damages under Civ. Code § 3294, that Defendant FCI’s alleged actions were either “malicious” or done with “conscious disregard” for Plaintiff’s rights.

 

DEMURRER TO FIRst Amended COMPLAINT of TANIGUCHI BY FCI LENDER SERVICES

 

The Demurrer to First Amended Complaint by Defendant FCI Lender Services, Inc. is OVERRULED.

 

The Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for negligence is OVERRULED. The First Amended Complaint states sufficient facts to support a cause of action based on Defendant’s alleged negligent mis-handling of the Plaintiffs’ loan payments and demand for late charges and “other” fees which Plaintiffs did not owe. The Biakanja factors could impose a duty on Defendant FCI to service the loan properly, which includes transferring the loan account to the next servicer without errors. The Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendant FCI’s negligence, as their home was put into foreclosure by a subsequent servicer, apparently based in part on the allegedly incorrect information provided by Defendant FCI. 

 

Moving party is directed to prepare written orders consistent with the Court’s rulings 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 Donald J. Ayoob, Department 27.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 529944       LISA M. SANCHEZ VS. CARO PEMBERTON, ET AL.

 

 

LISA M. SANCHEZ                       MARK WILSON

CARO PEMBERTON                        MARK E. DAVIS

 

 

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET TWO ADMITTED BY JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

 

 

The unopposed Motion by Defendants to Deem Requests for Admission [Set 2] is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2033.280.  The genuineness of each document and the truth of all matters specified in Request for Admissions, Set Two, dated March 23, 2016, are hereby deemed admitted.

 

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 Donald J. Ayoob, Department 27.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

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

 

 

ZENAT JOUDIEH                         SARAH ADELAARS

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.                 TIM G. CEPERLEY

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO SECOnd Amended COMPLAINT of

JOUDIEH FILED BY BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

 

Pursuant to stipulation and prior order of the Court, this motion is CONTINUED to August 15, 2016.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 533327       CAROLINE MANEATIS VS. HILTON SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT

                     BAYFRONT, ET AL.

 

 

CAROLINE MANEATIS                        PRO/PER

HILTON SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT BAYFRONT    GREGORY P. ARAKAWA

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY CAROLINE MANEATIS

 

 

Plaintiff Caroline Maneatis’s Motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §§473(a)(1), 576 and California’s liberal public policy of permitting the filing of amended pleadings. Edwards v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 172, 180. The motion is granted with the exception of the claim for false imprisonment, which Plaintiff concedes is untimely. Defendants have not demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant denial of the motion. Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. Although this court agrees that the trial date of October 3, 2016 should be continued, the Law & Motion Department may not change the trial date. The parties will need to seek a trial continuance from the presiding judge, the Hon. John Grandsaert in Department 11.

 

Plaintiff shall file the Amended Complaint within 15 days of entry of the Court’s order.

 

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

7

CIV 534129   NEALI CORDANO, ET AL. VS. THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ET AL.

 

 

NEALI CORDANO                         GRANT A. WINTER

THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO               JOHN C. BEIERS

 

 

MOTION TO DETERMINE GOOD FAITH OF SETTLEMENT BY THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ET AL.

 

County of San Mateo, San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office, Stephen M. Wagstaff, Karen Guidotti, Mary L. Allhiser and the San Mateo County Human Resources Department’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Neither side has set forth an amount (or range) for plaintiff’s potential recovery, let alone provided any information supporting such an amount. “Without the facts, in a contested hearing, it is impossible for a court to exercise its discretion in an appropriate fashion.” City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1263.

 

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 Donald J. Ayoob, Department 27.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

8

CIV 538047       JINAN FENG VS. JOANNA CHANG

 

 

JINAN FENG                            PRO/PER

JOANNA CHANG                          PRO/PER

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of FENG BY JOANNA CHANG

 

Defendant Joanna Chang, the demurring party, has failed to file a declaration, as required by CCP §430.41(a)(3), showing that the parties met and conferred, either telephonically or in person, 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 July 25, 2016 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 seven (7) days prior to the new hearing date, a code-complaint 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 the 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.

 

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

9

CIV 538204    AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. VS. FRANCIS DEAN, INC., ET AL.

 

 

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.        ANDREW A. BASSAK

FRANCIS DEAN, INC.                    DAVID M. KING

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE ALLEGATIONS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES BY FRANCIS DEAN, INC., ET AL.

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC

BY FRANCIS DEAN, INC., ET AL.

 

 

Pursuant to stipulation and prior order of the Court, these matters are CONTINUED to July 14, 2016.

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________


9:01

10

 

 

CLJ 212474        BALDINI REAL ESTATE, INC.  VS. MARGARET MO

 

 

BALDINI REAL ESTATE, INC.             KELLY S. KENNY

MARGARET MO                           DAVID BUTLER

 

 

MOTION FOR PETITION FOR STAY OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL FROM SAME FILED BY MARGARET MO

The parties are directed to appear in the Law and Motion Department for hearing on the Motion.

____________________________________________________________________________


9:01

11

CIV 496994       BEALS MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. VS. LIFE

                   TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

 

 

384 FOSTER CTY BOULEVARD PARTNERS     P. KURT PETERSON

APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS, LLC               ADAM M. TSCHOP

 

 

MOTION BY DEFENDANTT FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES BY APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS, LLC

 

Motion to be heard on June 30, 2016.

 

____________________________________________________________________________


 


 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Special Set Calendar

Judge: Honorable susan irene etezadi

Department 18

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2M

 

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

 

IF YOU INTEND TO APPEAR ON ANY CASE ON THIS CALENDAR YOU MUST DO THE FOLLOWING:

 

1. YOU MUST CALL (650) 261-5118 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 525365       MICHAEL D. LIBERTY VS. THOMAS NUSSBAUM, ET AL.

 

 

MICHEAL D LIBERTY                     MICHAEL D. LIBERTY

THOMAS NUSSBAUM                       PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE AND VACATING DEFAULT JUDGEMENT GRANTING MICHAEL LIBERTY ARBITRATION AWARD PROCURED BY EXTRINSIC FRAUD

 

Respondents’ motion to vacate the judgment is DENIED without prejudice due to insufficient notice.  It appears that the motion was served by mail on June 8.

 

 

Civil Code of Procedure section 1005(b) requires that notice and moving papers be served 16 court days before the hearing date and if service is by mail, an additional 5 calendar days must be added to the notice.

 

Civil Code of Procedure section 1013a requires that the person who made the service by mail should state “that he or she is not a party to the cause.” Civil Code of Procedure section 1013a further requires that the proof of service by mail show the date and place of deposit in the mail. Mr. Nussbaum stated ”I …on this date declare under penalty of perjury that I sent by certified mail the above listed documents.” It is unclear whether Mr., Nussbaum mailed the documents on that date or signed the proof of service on that day.

 

The court suggests that Respondents review Civil Code of Procedure §1005(b) and Civil Code of Procedure §1013a.

 

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.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County