May 28, 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 ELIZABETH K. LEE

Department 17

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2L

 

Wednesday, May 27, 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 516550       IAR SYSTEMS SOFTWARE, INC. VS. NADIM SHEHAYED, ET AL.

 

 

IAR SYSTEMS SOFTWARE, INC.            ANTONIO VALLA

NADIM SHEHAYED                        JEFFREY M. CURTISS

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND CORPORATE DESIGNEE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF KEY FACTS BY NADIM SHEHAYED, ET AL.

 

 

  • The Motion of Defendants/Cross-complainants to Compel Production of Documents and Corporate Designee with Knowledge of key facts is DENIED without prejudice.  The Court could find no indication of any order that discovery remain open; thus, the motion was filed after the deadline for filing discovery motions set forth in CCP §2024.020(a).  The Notice of Motion does not indicate that the moving parties are requesting that discovery be re-opened and even if the court was willing to construe the motion as such the moving parties have failed to address the factors set forth in CCP §2024.050(b). Pelton-Shepherd Indus., Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1568.

 

 

  • 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 Elizabeth Lee, Department 17.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 519064       JACKIEJO LOPEZ, ET AL. VS. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

                    DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

 

 

JACKIEJO LOPEZ                        GREGORY S. WALSTON

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

BY JACKIEJO LOPEZ

 

 

  • Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is DENIED because a Proof of Service was not filed as is required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300(c) (“Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing.”)

 

 

  • If Plaintiff is able to bring an endorsed filed Proof of Service for this Motion to court on May 27, 2015, the court will continue this hearing to June 8, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Joseph Scott, Department 25.

 

 

  • 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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 524595       MIGUEL LANDA, et al VS. DEVELOP R2, LLC., et al.

 

 

MIGUEL LANDA                          GRANT P. FONDO

DEVELOP R2, LLC.                      BRENDA CRUZ KEITH

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT BY MIGUEL LANDA, ET AL.

 

 

  • In light of the death of Ms. Keith, and that there does not appear to be a substitution of attorney on behalf of Defendant Develop R2 LLC, the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is CONTINUED to June 29, 2015. Both sides are instructed to resolve the legal representation issue pertaining to Develop R2 LLC so that the moving papers on this Motion can be properly served. 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 528513       JODI YOUNG VS. BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

 

 

JODI YOUNG                            CHARLES J. KATZ

BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT            JOHN A. SHUPE

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT

 

 

The Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication brought by Defendant BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT is GRANTED as to all causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint, as follows:

 

  • GRANTED as to the Second Cause of Action for Retaliation; Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Contract; Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and Seventh Cause of Action for Fraud and Deceit.  Plaintiff JODI YOUNG failed to offer any opposing arguments or evidence in support of these claims, thereby conceding them.

 

  • GRANTED as to the First Cause of Action for Discrimination, on the ground that the District has met its initial burden to demonstrate that at least one of the elements of this claim is without merit, by submitting evidence that it had a legitimate reason for the adverse personnel action against Plaintiff.  The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to introduce “specific and substantial responsive evidence” that the District’s proffered explanation is a pretext covering up discriminatory animus.  King v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 426, 432-33.  Plaintiff fails to meet this burden.  Moreover, this claim is also barred by collateral estoppel, as the question of whether there was good cause for the District’s disciplinary action has already been determined by the Commission on Teacher Competence in Plaintiff’s administrative trial.  Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 860, 864.

 

  • GRANTED as to the Third Cause of Action for Harassment.  Plaintiff concedes that her harassment claim is based solely upon the consequences of the adverse personnel action itself, which occurred after she was placed on leave.  Accordingly, she fails to demonstrate that she was severely or consistently so harassed that her workplace became offensive, which is necessary for this claim.  CACI 2521A; Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co., Inc. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 397, 409. 

 

  • GRANTED as to the Sixth Cause of Action for Failure to Prevent Discrimination.  Before liability for this claim can exist, the jury must determine that illegal discrimination did in fact occur.  Trujillo v. N. County Transit District (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 289.  As Plaintiff’s discrimination claim fails, so too this claim fails. 

 

·         GRANTED as to the Eighth Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.  In order to prevail on this cause of action, Plaintiff must demonstrate that her “severe emotional distress” was caused by “outrageous” conduct on the part of the District.  Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1045.  Here, the evidence establishes that the District’s personnel actions against Plaintiff were graduated over several years, and these actions were motivated by her own unprofessional and / or inappropriate conduct towards students.  After the administrative trial, the hearing officers determined that good cause existed for disciplining Plaintiff.  Thus, as a matter of law, the District did not engage in “outrageous” conduct that would give rise to an IIED claim. 

 

·         The District’s evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Jodi Young are SUSTAINED as to Objection Nos. 1-7 and OVERRULED`     as to Objection 8.  The evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Charles Katz as to Exhibits 1 and 2 are SUSTAINED.  The evidentiary objection to the Declaration of Yasaman Samsami is SUSTAINED.

 

  • 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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 530335       IAN MCCORMACK, ET AL. VS. RISHI R. SHARMA, ET AL.

 

 

IAN MCCORMACK                         IAN R. GREENSIDES

RISHI R. SHARMA                       GOPAL KRISHAN

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT BY RISHI R SHARMA, ET AL.

 

 

·         This matter is continued to July 8, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. pursuant to a joint stipulation by the parties.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 530864       IN RE $11,346.00

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MEGAN WILKINS

RANDY L. ASHFORD                     

 

 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

  • The Motion to Compel Reponses to Interrogatories is GRANTED and Interested Party (Randy Lee Ashford) is ordered to provide verified responses, without objections, within 15 days after service of Notice of Entry of Order. Interested Party is ordered to pay Plaintiff $175.00 as monetary sanctions, to be paid at the same time as the responses.

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER THAT REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

  • The Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED unless Interest Party (Randy Lee Ashford), before the hearing on the motion, serves a proposed response to the Requests for Admission that is in substantial compliance with section 2033.220. Interested Party is sanctioned $175.00 to be paid within 15 days after service of Notice of Entry of Order.

 

 

  • 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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

 

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 531351       PHILIP RAY FEGUSON VS. MANUEL TORRES

 

 

PHILLIP RAY FERGUSON                  PRO/PER

MANUEL TORRES                         WILLIAM L. MCCLURE

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT BY MANUEL TORRES

 

 

  • The Request for Judicial Notice by Defendant Manuel Torres is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code §452(d) and §453.

 

  • The unopposed Demurrer by Defendant Manuel Torres is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Presentation of a timely claim is a prerequisite to the filing of a civil complaint against a public employee. See e.g. State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal 4th 1234, 1239. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege any compliance with the California Government Tort Claims Act. Government Code §810-996.6. There are no allegations in the complaint as to compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act, or of seeking permission to file a late claim or to be relieved of the claim requirement.

 

 

  • Additionally, defendant Torres is immune from liability pursuant to Penal Code §847(b) which provides that there is no liability for false imprisonment or false arrest against a peace officer if the officer is acting within the scope of his or her authority and had reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful. Detective Torres is immune based upon the finding by Judge Mallach on September 26, 2014 that detective Torres did have reasonable suspicion to stop and talk with plaintiff.

 

 

  • Plaintiff has failed to allege any statutory basis for liability on the part of detective Torres. Government Code §815 creates general immunity for public entities and employees except as liability is directly imposed by statute. A cause of action against a public employee must be pled under a statutory basis of liability. Public entities and their employees are liable only to the extent provided by statute.

 

 

  • Finally, the ruling by Judge Barbara Mallach on Plaintiff’s motion to suppress in his criminal case is collateral estoppel as to the issue of whether detective Torres had reasonable suspicion to stop and question the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s allegation, that detective Torres did not have reasonable suspicion to stop and question him is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. See McGowan v. City of San Diego (1989) 208 CA 3d 890.

 

 

  • Demurring 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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

8

      CIV 532269       I. WILLIAM WISER VS. S&T PROPERTIES, ET AL.

 

 

I WILLIAM WISER                       PRO/PER

S&T PROPERTIES

 

 

DEMURRER TO FIRST Amended COMPLAINT BY JAYESH PATEL MR

 

 

·         On May 20, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court issued of a stay of all proceedings in this matter. This matter is stayed until further order of the court

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

9

CIV 532937       KATHRYN M. SCHOENDORF VS. DAVID B. EVANS, ET AL.

 

 

KATHRYN M. SCHOENDORF                 MATTHEW G GRECH

DAVID B. EVANS                        PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY THE PRESENT COURT PROCEEDINGS BY DAVID B. EVANS

 

 

  • Defendant/Petitioner David Evans’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Present Court Proceedings is DENIED. Defendant waived the contract provision requiring arbitration in the Waiver of Mediation Procedure entered into by the parties on December 3, 2013. That document reads, in relevant part, “The parties in the suit can mutually consent to not undertake the mediation option and bypass Formal Mediation and proceed to either Binding Arbitration or filing their suit in Superior Court.”

 

  • Plaintiff has elected to file suit in the Superior Court, which is one of the options permitted under that agreement. 

 

  • 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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

10

CIV 532951       XEROX CORPORATION VS. ACCURATE MAILINGS, INC

 

 

XEROX CORPORATION                     GEORGE T. GOST

ACCURATE MAILINGS, INC.

 

 

APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER/WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AS TO ACCURATE MAILINGS, INC. FILED BY XEROX CORPORATION

 

 

·         Plaintiff Xerox Corporation’s Application for Writ of Attachment is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §483.010(a),(c). The attachment is granted in the amount of $63,808.03, including principal of $49,289.24, plus interest in the amount of $2,924.34, estimated costs of $750.00 and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,174.34. Plaintiff is required to post an undertaking in the amount of $10,000.00 pursuant to CCP §489.220.

  • 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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

11

CLJ 530172       PITCAIRN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. ELIZABETH

                   MARIE BARNSON KARNAZES

 

 

PITCAIRN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIO        KEVIN D. FREDERICK

ELIZABETH MARIE BARNSON KARNAZES

 

 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS THEREON BY ELIZABETH MARIE BARNSON KARNAZES

 

 

  • The Motion to Quash Service is DENIED.  The facts stated in the Vartanian declaration, including the attached video recording of the proof of service, are sufficient to establish that defendant was personally served with the summons and complaint.

 

  • 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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


 

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

 

Wednesday, May 27, 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 522390       ANDY SABERI VS. SAEED GHAFOORI, ET AL.

 

 

ANDY SABERI                           BEHROUZ SHAFIE

SAEED GHAFOORI                        ORESTES A. CROSS

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER VACATING OR CONTINUING TRIAL DATE BY SAEED GHAFOORI

 

 

  • For good cause shown, Plaintiff’s  Motion for an Order Vacating or Continuing Trial Date is GRANTED in part. The jury trial date of September 8, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. is VACATED, and a new jury trial date of December 7, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. is set. The Mandatory Settlement Conference set for August 27, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 7 is VACATED and reset to November 20, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. Discovery deadlines will reset based on the new trial date.  Plaintiff to provide notice of this order to all parties.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 531991    MONSTER, LLC, ET AL. VS. BEATS ELECTRONICS, LLC., ET AL.

 

 

MONSTER, LLC.                         JOSEPH W COTCHETT

BEATS ELECTRONICS, LLC.               WILLIAM A. ISAACSON

 

 

COMPLEX CASE STATUS CONFERENCE

 

 

  • The Motion for Complex Case Status Conference is DENIED as moot.  This matter was transferred to Los Angeles County by order of the Law and Motion Judge on May 14, 2015.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Law and Motion Calendar

Judge: Honorable ELIZABETH K. LEE

Department 17

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2L

 

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

 

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

3. YOU MUST CALL (650) 261-5019 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. TO INFORM THE COURT OF YOUR INTENT TO APPEAR.

4. 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

9:01

1

CIV 477401       DAVID STONE VS. JAN-PRO INTERNATIONAL, INC.

 

 

DAVID STONE                           ALBERT M. KIM

JAN-PRO INTERNATIONAL, INC           

 

 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO AMEND JUDGMENT CCP §187

 

 

  • Fulton Connor's request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

 

 

  • Plaintiff/judgment creditor's motion for an order to amend the judgment is DENIED.  Plaintiff failed to present evidence showing that (1) Fulton Connor is the alter ego of Jan-Pro International, Inc. or (2) Fulton Connor controlled the defense of the litigation.

 

 

  • CCP §187 authorizes a trial court to amend a judgment by adding judgment debtors.  Judgments may be amended to add additional judgment debtors on the ground that a person or entity is the alter ego of the original judgment debtor. Danko v. O'Reilly (2014) 232 Cal. App. 4th 732, 736.  Amendment of a judgment to add an alter ego is an equitable procedure based on the theory that the court is not amending the judgment to add a new defendant but is merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant. Carr v. Barnabey's Hotel Corp. (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 14, 21-22.

 

  • Both parties rely upon Toho-Towa Co. v. Morgan Creek Prods., Inc. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 1096, 1106, where the court explained: “’The ability under section 187 to amend a judgment to add a defendant, thereby imposing liability on the new defendant without trial, requires both (1) that the new party be the alter ego of the old party and (2) that the new party had controlled the litigation, thereby having had the opportunity to litigate, in order to satisfy due process concerns.’”

 

  • The courts must also look at all the circumstances to determine whether the doctrine should be applied.  Id. at 1108-09. NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 772, 777 set out two requirements for disregarding the corporate entity: (1) there must be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the Corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow.

 

  • In order to add Connor as an additional judgment debtor, plaintiff must first show that Connor is the alter ego of Jan-Pro International, Inc.  Plaintiff David Stone declares that Fulton Connor is the president of "Jan-Pro", which is a franchise operation, that "Jan Pro" was the franchisor and that he was the franchisee.  Mr. Stone declares he personally dealt with Connor, who assigned him various jobs to be done and he was paid for services with a check drawn on the Jacksonville, Florida branch of Bank of America.  He declares "Jan-Pro" has several offices across the country.  He is informed/believes Fulton Connor was served in this action.  His attorney requested an order of examination of Fulton Connor and, although Fulton Connor was personally served, he failed to show up.  Fulton Connor is a resident of Santa Clara County.  Fulton Connor made all binding decisions for "Jan Pro" and is the president of the company.  Mr. Stone attached a copy of the check made out to him on a Jacksonville, Florida Bank of America account for "Connor-Nolan, Inc. dba Jan-Pro of Silicon Valley".

 

  • None of the statements in Mr. Stone's declaration show that Fulton Connor is the alter ego of (or was even involved with) Jan-Pro International, Inc.  At most, Mr. Stone has shown that Connor was somehow involved with an entity Stone refers to as "Jan-Pro" and that Connor was most likely involved with an entity called "Connor-Nolan, Inc. dba Jan-Pro of Silicon Valley".  Mr. Stone has not shown that either the "Jan-Pro" or "Connor-Nolan, Inc. dba Jan-Pro of Silicon Valley" entities are the same as Jan-Pro International, Inc., the entity against whom he has a judgment. 

 

  • Nor has plaintiff met the 2nd prong of showing that Connor controlled the litigation. “[T]he judgment can be made individually binding on a person associated with the corporation only if the individual to be charged, personally or through a representative, had control of the litigation and occasion to conduct it with a diligence corresponding to the risk of personal liability that was involved.” NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 772, 778-79.

 

  • Here, Connor was not named as a defendant.  The claims in the complaint were solely against Jan-Pro International, Inc.  Thus, although Connor was aware of the action (because he had been served with a copy of the summons/complaint) he was under no duty to appear/defend personally in the action since no claims have been made against him personally.  As default was entered against Jan-Pro International, Inc., there was no defense for Connor to control.

 

  • Fulton Connor's request for sanctions is DENIED.

 

  • 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 Elizabeth K. Lee, Department 17.

 

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

 

 

 

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County