March 3, 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, March 4, 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 522390       ANDY SABERI VS. SAEED GHAFOORI

 

 

ANDY SABERI                           DONALD F. DRUMMOND

SAEED GHAFOORI                        ORESTES A. CROSS

 

 

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL THOMAS SABERI BY SAEED GHAFOORI

 

 

·         The Court takes note of the Substitution of Attorney forms filed by Andy and Thomas Saberi on 2/26/15.  As Thomas Saberi has withdrawn as attorney of record in this case, the motion to disqualify him is rendered MOOT.

·         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

2

CIV 523629       NICOLAS TCHIKOVANI, ET AL. VS. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,

                   ET AL.

 

 

NICOLAS V. TCHIKOVANI                 PRO/PER

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.                    BRIAN H. GUNN

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE BY BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC

 

 

  • The Motions by Defendant Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC specifically, Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission, Set One Propounded on Plaintiffs are GRANTED.  Plaintiffs are ORDERED to respond to the subject request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories, without objection, within 14 days of notice of entry of order.

 

  • Proffered Requests for Admission are deemed Admitted.

 

  • Plaintiffs are FURTHER ORDERED to pay $1,000.00 in sanctions to Defendants within 14 days 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

 

MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE PROPOUNDED ON PLAINTIFF’S BY BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC

 

 

·         See above.

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE BY BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC

 

 

·         See above.

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE BY CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

 

 

  • The Motions brought by Defendant Citimortgage, Inc., specifically, Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission, Set One Propounded on Plaintiffs are GRANTED.  Plaintiffs are ORDERED to respond to the subject request for production of documents and interrogatories, without objection, within 14 days of notice of entry of order.

 

  • Proffered Requests for Admission are deemed admitted.

 

 

  • Plaintiffs are FURTHER ORDERED to pay $1,000.00 in sanctions to Defendants within 14 days 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE PROPOUNDED ON PLAINTIFF’S BY CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

 

 

·         See above.

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE BY MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS

 

 

  • The Motions brought by Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., specifically, Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission, Set One Propounded on Plaintiffs are GRANTED.  Plaintiffs are ORDERED to respond to the subject request for production of documents and interrogatories, without objection, within 14 days of notice of entry of order.

 

  • Proffered Requests for Admission are deemed admitted.

 

  • Plaintiffs are FURTHER ORDERED to pay $1,000.00 in sanctions to Defendants within 14 days 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 Joseph C. Scott, Department 25.

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINITFF’S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE BY CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

 

 

·         See above.

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE BY MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS

 

 

·         See above.

 

 

MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE PROPOUNDED ON PLAINTIFF’S BY MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS

 

 

·         See above.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________


9:00

3

CIV 523801       GUINNANE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. VS. ALLEN M. PROWS,

                   ET AL.

 

GUINNANE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.       MARK J. ROMEO

ALLEN M. PROWS                        JAMES PAUL GREEN

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COMPLAINT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON FIRST AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT BY GUINNANE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC

 

 

  • After considering the papers filed in Support of and in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Guinnane Construction Co., Inc., the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

 

IT IS ORDERED that:

 

(1)    The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

 

(2)    Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Allen               M. Prows.

 

  • There is no triable issue of material fact with respect to the following matters:

 

  • Plaintiff has submitted Undisputed Material Facts which establish its cause of action for Quiet Title.

 

  • Title to the subject property was conveyed by the Trust of Ann M. Doody to Plaintiff in August 2013 (UMF Nos. 2 & 3) Allen Prows previously transferred his interest in the subject property to Ann Doody pursuant to an oral agreement with Ann Doody to buy out his interest in the property. (UMF Nos. 5 - 8) Allen Prows has not demonstrated that his oral agreement with Ann Doody included any provision that Prows would retain any interest in the property or that Ann Doody was granting him any interest in the property to secure her performance. (See Declaration of Allen Prows which fails to establish that Allen Prows had any interest in the subject property after he deeded his interest to Ann Doody in Jan. 2008.)

 

  • At the hearing of February 23, 2015, Plaintiff raised several issues, including existence of a vendor’s lien favoring Plaintiff; alteration of the subject deed; and forgery of the signature of Ann Doody.  The parties were directed to brief these issues as they related to Plaintiff’s action to quiet title.  Defendant Prows did not address vendor’s liens, apparently conceding this point. The validity of defectively executed documents is governed by Civil Code Sec. 1207 and case law. An alteration of a deed at the request of the grantor after it is signed does not render it invalid as originally executed.  The deed remains valid between the parties. [Miller & Starr Sec.8.54].  A deed that names several persons as grantors but is only executed by one of them is still effective to convey the interest of the person who has executed the deed unless its recitations or the surrounding facts indicate that the grantees did not intend the instrument to be effective as the conveyance of any interest of any one person unless it was executed by all of them.[Miller & Starr Sec. 8:15]. In this case, it is undisputed that Defendant Prows intended to transfer his interest in the subject property, and that the deed in question was signed by him. Any lack of validity of Ann Doody’s signature does not impact Mr. Prows transfer of his interest in the property.  The Court was not persuaded by the supplemental briefing submitted by Defendant Prows to change the previous tentative ruling.     

 

·         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.

 

 

            MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

 

 

  • The Motion for Summary Adjudication by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant as to the Declaratory Relief Cause of Action of the Amended Cross-complaint is DENIED.

 

  • The Declaratory Relief Cause of Action alleges a controversy concerning Cross-Complainant Allen Prows and credit card obligations arising from a joint credit care he had with Ann Doody. A declaration is sought to the effect that any obligations are and owing from Ann Doody and/or her Trust, through the Successor Trustee. However, no undisputed material facts are set forth in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement that address this alleged credit card obligation. Thus, the entire cause of action will not be defeated as is required. (Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c(f)(1); Hood v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 319; City of Emeryville v. Sup. Ct. (1991) 2 Cal. App. 4th 21)

 

  • Additionally, another issue in the Declaratory Relief Cause of Action is that Allen Prows’ claim for monetary relief against anyone is barred by the statute of limitations.  There is little dispute that there was an oral agreement between Ann Doody and Allen Prows that she would buy out his interest in the property via a refinance after he transferred his interest in the property to her.  Allen Prows then transferred his interest in the property to Ann Doody and she obtained a line of credit against the property. The issue that this claim for money is barred by the statute of limitations must be based upon a factual determination that starts with the breach of the oral agreement. The breach of the oral agreement is based upon when Ann Doody was supposed to pay Allen Prows the money for his interest in the property. Without knowing when Ann Doody was to perform her part of the oral contract it cannot be ascertained when the claim would be time barred. This date is not established in the moving Separate Statement.

 

·         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

4

CLJ 210622       U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS. JOSE LOPEZ, ET AL.

 

 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION        RANDALL D. NAIMAN

JOSE LOPEZ                            PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

 

 

  • Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.  Plaintiff has established the required elements of unlawful detainer under Code of Civil Procedure §1161a: Plaintiff’s ownership and right to possession through the trustee’s private sale and recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale; termination of the Defendants’ right to possession pursuant to a 90-day notice to quit [CCP § 1161a] and the Defendant’s continuing possession. The burden then shifts to Defendant under CCP §437c(p)(1) to establish a triable issue of material fact.  No opposition has been forthcoming.  Plaintiff is awarded a Judgment for Possession only.

 

  • 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

CLJ 531388       CASHCALL, INC. VS. SABRINA MICHELLE ACOSTA, ET AL.

 

 

CASCHCALL, INC.                       JOHN A. MAYERS

SABRINA MICHELLE ACOSTA

 

 

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION AFTER HEARING BY CASHCALL, INC.

 

 

·         The application for Writ of Possession by Plaintiff Cashcall, Inc.is DENIED Without Prejudice. Plaintiff has not met the requirements under CCP § 1005. Specifically, Plaintiff has not served the Defendant with the Notice of Application for Writ of Possession and the Writ of Possession as required under CCP §1005. 

 

·         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.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________


9:01

6

CIV 530458       JANE FENG VS. ARTHUR J. LIU

 

 

JANE FENG                             PRO/PER

ARTHUR J. LIU                         PRO/PER

 

 

DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S ENTIRE COMPLAINT WITH REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

BY ARTHUR J. LIU

 

 

  • Defendant Arthur J. Liu’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code §§452(d) and 453.

 

  • The Demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint by Defendant Arthur L. Liu is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

 

  • Plaintiff’s complaint for fraud is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. CCP §1908]. An existing final judgment on the merits of the case rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is, in all subsequent actions between the same parties, conclusive of the rights of the parties and their privies on all material issues which were or might have been determined.[Eistrat v. J.C. Wattenbarger & Sons (1960) 181 Cal App 2d 57].

 

  • In addition, the action for fraud would be barred by the statute of limitations. In the earlier case [CIV 517130] the Court found that Plaintiff became aware of the fraud claims she had against Defendant no later than October 6, 2010. The statute of limitations for fraud is three years pursuant to CCP 338 (d) and this case was not filed until September 16, 2014 nearly four years from the October 6, 2010 date.

 

  • 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.

 

____________________________________________________________________


 

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, March 4, 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 525068       ALPHA CARD SYSTEMS, LLC VS. JOLLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 

 

ALPHA CARD SYSTEMS, LLC               MATTHEW A. HAULK

JOLLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.              ENOCH H. LIANG

 

 

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE BY JOLLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 

 

·         Trial in this case is continued from 3/30/2015 to 9/28/2015.  Discovery cut-off dates will reset accordingly.  The 3/30/2015 Jury Trial date is vacated, as is the Mandatory Settlement Conference of 3/17/2015 at 1:30 p.m.  The parties are ordered to attend a Mandatory Settlement Conference on 9/16/2015 at 1:30 p.m.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2015 Superior Court of San Mateo County