August 2, 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

 

Wednesday, July 29, 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 519964       AMER SPORTS WINTER & OUTDOOR COMPANY VS. CIT SPORTS

                   INC., ET AL.

 

 

AMER SPORTS WINTER & OUTDOOR COMPANY  JOEL D. ADLER

CIT SPORTS, INC.                      LAWRENCE A. JACOBSON

 

 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD BY LAWRENCE A. JACOBSON

 

 

·         The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant CIT Sports, Inc.by attorney Lawrence Jacobson is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §284(2).

 

·         Counsel has used the required forms and provided notice to his client, and to all other parties who have appeared in the case per CRC § 3.1362(d).

 

·         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 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 525953      RONNALYN BORDON VS. SEVILLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, ET AL.

 

 

RONNALYN BORDON                       PRO/PER

SEVILLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCATION         ELAINE R. LEE

 

 

MOTION 1) COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET 1: 2) COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO

DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 1: 3) COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET 1: 4) IMPOSE IN MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF RONNALYN BORDON 5) IMPOSE TERMINATING, ISSUE OR EVIDENCE SANCTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF, RONNALYN BORDON BY SEVILLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCATION, CARRICK AND ENGLISH

 

 

·         Appear.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 527620       MOISES ROMERO, ET AL. VS. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

 

 

MOISES ROMERO                         JESSICA GALLETTA

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.            ANNE P. DAHER

 

 

DEMURRER TO THIRD Amended COMPLAINT BY JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

 

 

 

·         The Request for Judicial Notice by Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank,N.A. is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code 452(d), (h).

 

·         The demurrer by Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. to the Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint is sustained as follows:

 

·         The demurrer to the first cause of action for violation of Civil Code §2924.10 is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Under the Homeowners Bill Of Rights, a borrower is only entitled to actual economic damages if a trustee’s deed upon sale has been recorded and if the damages resulted from a material violation. Civil Code §2924.12(a), (b). In this case, no trustee’s deed upon sale has been recorded and plaintiffs remain in possession of the property. They are not entitled to damages. The only remedy for a violation of §2924.10 where a trustee’s deed has not been recorded, is injunctive relief to enjoin a material violation. Civil Code §2924.12. They have failed to allege any harm arising from defendant’s purported misconduct and have not sufficiently alleged a material violation.

 

·         The demurrer to the second cause of action for breach of the covenant of

good faith and fair dealing is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs

have not adequately plead that they performed under the subject

contracts, have failed to sufficiently allege that defendant unfairly

interfered with their right to receive a benefit under the contract and have

not alleged that they were harmed by the conduct.

 

·         The demurrer to the third cause of action for injunctive relief is SUSTAINED

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Injunctive relief is a remedy, not a cause of

action. [City of South Pasadena v. Department of Transportation (1994) 29

Cal App 4th 1280, 1293].

 

·         Plaintiffs are granted leave to file and serve a 4th Amended Complaint, should they elect to do so, until August 14, 2015.

 

·         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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 531020      PACIFIC COAST MARITIME AGENCIES, INC. VS. PAUL P. SOGOTIS

 

 

PACIFIC COAST MARITIME AGENCIES, INC. RAMON V. LOPEZ

PAUL P. SOGOTIS                       PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY PACIFIC COAST MARITIME AGENCIES, INC.

 

 

·         Moot. A stipulation to file an Amended Complaint was filed on July 21, 2015.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 532068       ERIKA VILCHEZ VS. BIANCA BELLA BALBONI

 

 

ERIKA VILCHEZ                         JACOB SHAPIRO

BIANCA BELA BALBONI                   JAMES P. MOLINELLI

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL 1) FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORY AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY ERIKA VILCHEZ

 

·         The Motion is GRANTED.

 

·         Nothing in the verbiage of interrogatory 16.9 necessarily calls for disclosure of any attorney-client communication or attorney work product. “Work product” is not defined in the statute. Therefore, “whether specific material is work product must be resolved on a case-by-case basis.” (Dowden v. Superior Court (1999) 73 Cal. App. 4th 126, 135.) Section 2018.030 protects against disclosure of any “writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.” Interrogatory 16.9 does not describe a writing meeting that description.

 

·         In determining work product protection, the Court considers “the policy of promoting diligence in preparing one's own case, rather than depending on an adversary's efforts. (Dowden, supra, at 135.) Interrogatory 16.9 does not necessarily violate this policy. The interrogatory (“do you have any document”) does not necessarily describe work by any attorney in preparation for any litigation.  It also does not necessarily allow Plaintiff’s counsel to “depend on an adversary’s efforts.” The first part of the interrogatory asks a yes/no question: whether Defendant has a particular document. The question does not call for disclosure of any attorney-client communication or work product.

    

·         The remainder of the interrogatory applies only if Defendant answers the first part in the affirmative. The subparts do not, on their face, call for any privileged or work product material. “If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, subd. (a). If responding to the subparts would require disclosing attorney-client communication or attorney work product, Defendant need not make that disclosure, but she must set forth specific facts explaining why or how the privilege or work product protection precludes a further response.

 

·         The request for sanctions is DENIED.  

 

·         Defendant shall serve a verified further response no later than August 13, 2015. 

 

·         If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff 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

6

CIV 532531       MATT CHRISTIANO, ET AL. VS. CHRISTINA GALINDO

 

 

MATT CHRISTIANO                       PATRICIA A. BOYES

CHRISTINA GALINDO                     TIMOTHY C. WILLIAMS

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of CHRISTIANO BY CHRISTINA GALINDO

 

 

·         The Demurrer as to the First Cause of Action (Partition) is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to allow Plaintiffs an opportunity to plead sufficient facts to support the allegation that their right for partition has not been waived.

 

·         The Demurer as to the Second Cause of Action is OVERRULED. The basis for Demurrer as to the Second Cause of Action (Breach of Contract) is that it is barred by the One Action Rule pursuant to section 726.  This is not a ground for demurrer and should be asserted as an affirmative defense. (See, Salter v. Ulrich (1943) 22 Cal. 2d 263, 267-268; and, Scalese v. Wong (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 863, 869).  Also, Defendant demurs to the entire action on the same ground, and thus the Demurrer to the Entire Action is also OVERRULED.

 

·         The Demurrer as to the Third Cause of Action (Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) is OVERRULED.

 

·         Plaintiffs’ amended pleading shall be filed and served within 20 days after service of Notice of Entry of Order.

 

·         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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 533340       MAILAU KAULAVE VS. RESIDENTIAL MORTGAE LOAN TRUST

                   2013-TT2, ET AL.

 

 

MAILAU KAULAVE                        ARASTO FARSAD

RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2013-TT2  JOHN C STEELE

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of KAULAVE BY RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2013-TT2, ET AL.

 

  • Defendant Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2013-TT2 by U.S. Bank, N.A. as legal title trustee’s unopposed Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 1st cause of action, OVERRULED as to the 2nd  and 4th  causes of action, and SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 3rd cause of action. 
  • Regarding the first cause of action, the Court finds that because this Defendant, Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2013-TT2, did not have any interest in the deed of trust at the time the Notice of Default was filed, it had no obligation to contact Plaintiff in compliance with Civ. Code § 2923.5. As stated previously, the  demurrer to this cause of action is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to supplement the fact pleadings, if so desired.
  • Regarding the second cause of action, Defendant argues that the sale originally set for October 28, 2015 went forward on that date and the sale was not delayed until November, as alleged in the Complaint. However, the Court must take all pleadings as true for purposes of demurrer. Therefore, the demurrer to this cause of action is overruled.
  • As to the third cause of action, violation of Civ. Code § 2924.17, this section did not become effective until after the Notice of Default was filed, therefore this section does not apply to this transaction. Therefore, the demurrer to this cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.
  • Regarding the fourth cause of action, Plaintiff bases his fourth cause of action on the claims made in the first through third causes of action. However, when pleading a cause of action under Bus. & Prof. § 17200, et seq, if the predicate claim fails, so does the cause of action. Based on the second cause of action, the demurrer to this cause of action is overruled.
  • Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED only insofar as the documents were duly filed or recorded, but not as to the truth of any matters contained therein.

 

  • Plaintiff is granted leave to file and serve a 1st Amended Complaint, should he elect to do so, no later than 20 days of receipt of notice of entry of order.

 

·         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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

8

CLJ 511586       FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A. VS. MARIA ALEXIS FE C VALIAO

 

 

FIA CARD SERVICES NA                  ROBERT SCOTT KENNARD

MARIA ALEXIS FE C VALIAO              MARK C. WATSON

 

 

MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION BY MARIA ALEXIS FE C VALIAO

 

·         The Court, having considered the factors enumerated in CRC 3.1342(e), GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for delay in prosecution.

 

·         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 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

 

Wednesday, July 29, 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 534070       VINCENT P. HUNTER VS. AEROHIVE NETWORKS, INC., ET AL.

 

 

VINCENT P HUNTER                      SHAWN A. WILLIAMS

AEROHIVE NETWORKS, INC.

 

 

COMPLEX CASE STATUS CONFERENCE

 

 

·         Appear.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

 

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County