September 1, 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 susan irene etezadi

Department 18

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2M

 

Wednesday, September 2, 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.

 

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 519758       APPLIED MEDICAL CORP. VS T. PETER THOMAS, ET AL.

 

 

APPLIED MEDICAL CORPORATION              NATHANIEL P. GARRETT

T. PETER THOMAS                          SUSAN J. HARRIMAN

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS BY APPLIED MEDICAL CORPORATION

 

 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The costs awarded to Defendants are reduced to $180,066.77.

 

The following items are stricken from the costs bill:

  • Legal research in the amount of $100,579.29.

Fees for legal research, computer or otherwise, may not be recovered under CCP § 1033.5. Ladas v. California State Automobile Assn, (1993) 19 Cal App 4th 761, 775.

 

  • Courier Fees of $11,980.14.

CCP § 1033.5(b)(3) expressly disallows the prevailing party from collecting postage costs. The Court finds that a courier was used in lieu of mailing here.

 

  • Expedited Deposition fees of $6,507.95.

CCP § 1033.5(a)(3) allows for the recovery of standard transcription fees for necessary depositions only.

 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, 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

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

2

CIV 525053       MANOLO VASQUEZ vs. BI-RITE RESTUARANT SUPPLY COMPANY,

                   INC., ET AL.

 

 

MANOLO VASQUEZ                           ASHWIN V. LADVA

BI-RITE RESTUARANT SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.  LISA BARNETT SWEEN

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE BY MANOLO VASQUEZ

 

 

 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, set one is GRANTED.  Defendant Bi-Rite Restaurant Supply shall provide further responses without objections and shall comply with the requirements of CCP §2030.220(c).  Bi-Rite failed to set forth the efforts made to secure the requested information. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782-83.  Both parties’ requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED as this was a matter that could have been resolved through meet and confer efforts. 

 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, 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.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 527513       CAROLINE RAYMUNDO VS. THOMAS ESAU PRICE, ET AL.

 

 

CAROLINE RAYMUNDO                     MICHAEL A. HOROWITZ

THOMAS ESAU PRICE                     CHRISTOPHER S. TESKE

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC

 

 

On September 1, 2015, the Court was advised by letter that defendant and moving party, requests that this motion be taken off calendar. The motion is therefore taken off calendar.

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

4

CIV 530072       CHRISTINA LADD, ET AL. VS. IZZY'S STEAKS & CHOPS

                   SAN CARLOS, INC.

 

 

CHRISTINA LADD                        ALEC SEGARICH

IZZY'S STEAKS & CHOPS SAN CARLOS, INC. DANIEL SLIJEPCEVICH

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT BY IZZY'S STEAKS & CHOPS SAN CARLOS, INC.

 

 

The Motion by Defendant Izzy’s Steaks & Chops San Carlos, Inc. for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is DENIED. Even under the permissive standard set forth in CCP §426.50, a party may not bring untimely cross-claims in bad faith. See Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank at al (1990) 217 Cal App 3d 94, 98-99. Where there is substantial evidence of bad faith the Court may deny leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint. Id. The Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence that demonstrates that Defendant was aware of the facts underlying their proposed cross-complaint. In fact, Defendant raised those facts in a hearing before the California Labor Commission and was also aware of those facts when they filed their answer on January 13, 2015 and raised affirmative defenses based on willful misconduct, recklessness, unclean hands and estoppel. Defendant was also aware of these facts when they provided responses to interrogatories on May 1, 2015.

 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, 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.

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

5

CIV 530582       LJUVICA KOLICH, ET AL. VS. MARCIA G. BARKOFF, ET AL.

 

 

LJUVICE KOLICH                        SCOTT D. RIGHTHAND

MARCIA G. BARKOFF                     PAUL R. BALERIA

 

 

MOTION TO ESTABLISH SEQUENCE AND TIMING OF DISCOVERY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BY MARCIA G. BARKOFF, ET AL.

 

 

The Motion is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2019.020(b).  Discovery shall not proceed until the court rules on Defendants’ pending motion to stay this action.

 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, 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.

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

6

CIV 531853       BANC OF AMERICA LEASING, ETAL VS IQWARE, INC, ETAL

 

 

BANC OF AMERICA LEASING & CAPI        KEVIN P. WHITEFORD

IQWARE, INC.                          TERESA C CHOW

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FIRST SETS OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, ETC. BY BANC OF AMERICA LEASING & CAPITAL, LLC

 

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3 & 4 as to both Defendants (IQware, Inc. and Donald Seddon); the Motion is DENIED as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 86 & 87.

 

Defendants are ORDERED to serve further verified responses within 15 days after service of Notice of Entry of Order.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, 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.

 

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FIRST SETS OF REQUESTS FOR, ETC. BY BANC OF AMERICA LEASING & CAPITAL, LLC

 

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED and Defendants IQware, Inc. and Donald Seddon are ORDERED to provide further responses to all of the Document Requests in compliance with the Code, particularly section 2031.210.

 

Defendants are ORDERED to serve further responses and produce responsive documents within 15 days after service of Notice of Entry of Order.

 

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.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

7

CIV 532155       PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY VS. RANGER PIPELINES,

                   INC., ET AL.

 

 

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY        GERARD J. DONNELLAN

RANGER PIPELINES, INC.                MICHAEL G. DESCALSO

 

 

DISCOVERY MOTION FILED BY PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

 

 

The Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses, Responses to Request for Production and to Deem Matters Admitted by Plaintiff is GRANTED. All those matters set forth in the Request for Admissions, Set One, dated March 17, 2015 to each defendant are hereby deemed admitted. Further, Defendants Ranger Pipelines, Inc. and the City of San Mateo shall provide verified responses, without objection, to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within 10 days of service of the notice of entry of order. Defendants Ranger Pipelines, Inc. and the City of San Mateo are further ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,290.00 to Plaintiff within 10 days of service of the notice of entry of order.

 

 

 

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.

____________________________________________________________________


9:00

8

CIV 534134       LABORATORY SKIN CARE, INC. VS. CRP EDGEWATER, LLC

 

 

LABORATORY SKIN CARE, INC.            RICHARD A. LAPPING

CRP EDGEWATER, LLC

 

 

SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT (ANTI-SLAPP MOTION) BY CRP EDGEWATER, LLC

 

The Special Motion to Strike is DENIED.

 

 

The Complaint alleges two causes of action, both of which arise from a dispute over contract interpretation resulting from negotiations of the lease amendments. The letter of June 1, 2015, despite its supposed threat of litigation, is not the basis of Plaintiff’s claims. Rather, the Complaint is based on a dispute concerning interpretation of the Lease and the Second Amendment.

 

 

The June 1, 2015, letter is merely evidence of the dispute.  Plaintiff’s causes of action could be asserted even in the absence of any threat of unlawful detainer. The contents of the letter are “merely incidental” to the claim. (Martinez v. Metabolife Int'l, Inc. (2003) 113 Cal. App. 4th 181, 188. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint does not “arise from” the June 1, 2015, letter.  (Kolar v. Donahue, McIntosh & Hammerton (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 1532, 1537-38 [claim “arises from” act when act “forms the basis for the plaintiff's cause of action”].)

 

 

Defendant shall file an Answer no later than September 23, 2015, or two weeks after service of written Notice of Order denying this motion, whichever is later.

 

 

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.

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

9

CLJ 516980       KELKRIS ASSOCIATES, INC. VS. CORINNE B. VALERIO

                  -EUGENIO, ET AL.

 

 

KELKRIS ASSOCIATES, INC.              TERRY A. DUREE

CORINNE B. VALERIO-EUGENIO            PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR IMPOSING TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR FAILING TO OBEY THE COURT ORDER OF JUNE 16, 2014 BY KELKRIS ASSOCIATES, INC

 

 

 

The Motion by Plaintiff Kelkris Associates, Inc. dba Credit Bureau Associates for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2023.010. Defendants have failed to provide discovery responses as previously ordered by the court and failed to pay court-ordered monetary sanctions. This conduct is sufficient to warrant terminating sanctions. The Defendants’ answer is dismissed and their default is entered.

 

 

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.

________________________________________________________________


9:00

10

CLJ 528705       UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY VS. YAN WU, ET AL.

 

 

UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY     MARK R. NIVINSKUS

YAN WU

 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT BY YAN WU

 

 

The Motion by Defendant Yan Wu is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §473.5. Her default and the default judgment entered on June 15, 2015 are set aside. Defendant shall file her proposed answer within 5 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.

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

11

CLJ 533900       MIRIAM MUELLER VS. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO DEPARTMENT

                   OF HOUSING, ET AL.

 

 

MIRIAM MUELLER                        AMY BINGHAM

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING  TIM SHIMIZU

 

 

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT BY WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

 

 

On 8/26/2015, the Court received a Request for Dismissal without prejudice as to the entire case of all parties and all causes of action. Therefore, this matter is off calendar.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County