August 24, 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 jonathan e. karesh

Department 20

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 8C

 

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

 

NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL

 

Until further order of the Court, no endorsed-filed “courtesy copy” of pleadings is required to be provided to the Law and Motion Department.

 

 

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

 

Line 1

16-civ-00177

TERESA GARCIA, et al. vs. FRANCISCO MORAN, et al.

 

 

TERESA GARCIA

CHRISTOPHER R. LUCAS

FRANCISCO MORAN

CATHLEEN COOPER MORAN

 

 

Hearing on Demurrer

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Demurring party’s supporting attorney declaration does not demonstrate compliance with Code Civ. Proc. Section 430.41, which requires an attempt to meet and confer “in-person or by telephone” with the party who filed the pleading for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached to resolve the objections raised in the Demurrer.  The hearing on the Demurrer is continued until September 8, 2016 at 9 a.m. in the Law & Motion Department.  The Demurring party shall file, no later than 7 days prior to the new hearing date, a 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 Demurrer failed to respond to a meet and confer request, which included an attempt to speak either in-person or by telephone, or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.  If the Demurring party fails to file and serve the requested declaration demonstrating compliance with Section 430.41, the Demurrer will be stricken as procedurally improper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:00

 

LINE 2

CIV537038

TRIPLE PLAY, ET AL. VS. 365 LIVE LOGISTICS, ET AL.

 

 

TRIPLE PLAY SERVICES, INC.

MATTHEW P. JAMES

365 LIVE LOGISTICS, LLC

 

 

 

Motion to Set Aside Default/Judgment

TENTATIVE RULING: 

 

By stipulation and order the matter is continued to September 13, 2016 at 9 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department. Appearance by the attorneys is not required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:00

 

LINE 3

CIV537133

GINA MIRANDA VS. LISA R. MARIE KLEINHEINZ

 

 

GINA A. MIRANDA

SUSAN F. REYES

LISA R. MARIE KLEINHEINZ

PRO/PER

 

 

Motion to Compel Interrogatories

TENTATIVE RULING:  

 

The Motion to Compel is granted as to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories and requests for production of documents.  Defendant shall provide verified responses, without objection, within 10 days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order.

 

The Motion is, however, denied to the extent plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant to the respond to the requests for admission.  Plaintiff cites no authority permitting the court to do so.  CCP Section 2033.280 provides that if a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.  Plaintiff has not requested this relief.   

 

The request for sanctions is also denied.  The declaration of Susan Reyes indicates only that counsel anticipates spending 4.5 hours in preparation and hearing of the motion.  Given the lack of opposition and the court’s tentative ruling, a hearing may not be necessary and there is no evidence as to the time actually spent preparing the motion. 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:00

 

LINE 4

CIV538961

LUCKY STRIKE FARMS VS. PAUL GORMAN, ET AL

 

 

LUCKY STRIKE FARMS, INC.

MICHAEL D. LIBERTY

PAUL GORMAN

 

 

 

Motion to Quash SERVICE OF SUMMONS OF DEFENDANTS

TENTATIVE RULING: 

 

The unopposed Motion of Defendants Paul Gorman and 1248671 Ontario, Inc. dba Macartney Farms (collectively “Defendants”) to Quash Service of Summons, is GRANTED.

 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10(a)(1), Defendants move to quash service of the summons on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants.  Specifically, the court has neither general nor specific jurisdiction over Defendants. 

 

On a motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction 418.10(a)(1), the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that “minimum contacts” exist between defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.  (Mihlon v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710; Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232-1233.) “Minimum contacts” means the relationship between the nonresident and the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”  (International Shoe Co. v. State of Wash. (1945) 326 US 310, 316.)  If the plaintiff meets this burden, then it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.  (Buchanan v. Soto (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362.) 

 

Here, Plaintiff has not opposed this motion, and therefore has not met its burden of demonstrating that Defendants have minimum contacts with California to support this court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants.  Further, it appears from Defendants’ declarations that they lack minimum contacts with California for this court to have either specific or general jurisdiction over Defendants.

 

Accordingly, the summons issued on June 3, 2016 as to Defendants, is hereby QUASHED. 

 

This Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendants.  (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 581(h).) 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:00

 

Line 5

CLJ212290

JA 2109 DUMBARTON LLC VS. MONIQUE DAVENPORT, ET AL.

 

 

JA 2109 DUMBARTON LLC

JOANNA KOZUBAL

MONIQUE DAVENPORT

KARI A. RUDD

 

 

Motion to Enforce the Parties Settlement Agreement

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

          1.    Plaintiff is entitled to possession of the premises at 2336 Ralmar Avenue, East Palo Alto, California, 94303.

 

     2.   Plaintiff shall recover $14,500 in damages against Defendant, representing $100 in daily rental value from February 12, 2016, through August 24, 2016. (It should be noted that because 2016 is a leap year, the Plaintiff would be entitled to an additional $100 in damages representing the rent for February 29, for a total of $14,600.  However, because the Plaintiff only requested $14,500 in damages, that is what the court will award.)

 

     3.   Plaintiff shall recover costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032 et seq. and CRC Rule 3.1700. Attorney’s fees shall be determined pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(10)(B) and (c)(5) and CRC 3.1702.

 

     4.   Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant $4500 upon surrender of the premises. (Stipulation ¶ 10.)

 

     5.  The $4,900 which the defendant deposited in trust with the court is ordered to be released to the plaintiff.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County