September 26, 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, September 21, 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

LineS: 1 & 2

16-CIV-00189     REYNALDO DE LEON, et al. vs. YAN HUI FANG TRUSTEE OF

                    THE YAN HUI FANG TRUST, et al.

 

 

REYNALDO DE LEON                      CARY KLETTER

YAN HUI FANG

Hearing on demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The demurrer is moot because the first amended complaint was filed on August 26, 2016.

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion to strike is moot because the first amended complaint was filed on August 26, 2016.

 



9:00

Line: 3

16-CIV-00794     FRED STUDER vs. NETSUITE, INC., et al.

 

 

FRED STUDER                           CLIFF PALEFSKY

NETSUITE, INC.                        JANIE F. SCHULMAN

 

 

MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion to Strike is moot as the first amended complaint was filed on September 7, 2016.

 



9:00

Line: 4

CIV507680     STEVEN EDELMAN, ET AL. VS. NICHOLSON-LAMB VENTURE lp

 

 

STEVEN EDELMAN                        G. SCOTT EMBLIDGE

NICHOLSON-LAMB VENTURE LP             KRISTOFER W. BIORN

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF HOPKINS & Carley in furtherance of order of examination

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production from Hopkins & Carley, LLP is granted as to all six categories of documents sought.  To the extent to any documents implicate the attorney-client privilege, this is to be addressed by the attorneys through a privilege log.

 

The documents are to be produced within thirty days of service of the notice of entry of order.

 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith and agree, within 10 days of service of the entry of order, on the language of a protective order that shall govern all produced documents.  If the parties cannot agree on the language, which should be simple and non-controversial, no party shall seek Court intervention without a declaration demonstrating a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute and a substantial justification for not agreeing to the proposed language, in the absence of which the Court will consider sanctions. 

 

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, Plaintiffs are 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

LineS: 5 & 6

CIV533705     TOYIN LAWLOR, ET AL. VS. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, ET AL.

 

 

TOYIN LAWLOR                          JACOB SHAPIRO

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY                 KELLY M. BREEN

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant Otis Elevator Company’s Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories is withdrawn, at the request of the moving party. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied. The parties met and conferred in good faith over the issues, although they continued to disagree.

 

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.

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant Otis Elevator Company’s Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents is withdrawn, at the request of the moving party. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.  The parties met and conferred in good faith over the issues, although they continued to disagree.

 

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.

 



9:00

Line: 7

CIV533986 SOPHIA ZUNDELEVICH, ETAL VS KINDRED HEALTHCARE, ET

 

 

 

SOPHIA ZUNDELEVICH                    DAVID S. SECREST

KINDRED HEALTHCARE, INC.              D. GREGORY VALENZA

 

 

Motion FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion is moot because the notice of settlement was filed on August 18, 2016.

 



9:00

Line: 8

CIV535557     JOHN P. MCMONAGLE VS. SHANNON K. LANCE

 

 

JOHN PAUL MCMONAGLE                   LON D. LAZAR

SHANNON K. LANCE

 

 

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Counsel Lon Lazar’s unopposed Motions to Withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff John Paul McMonagle is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 284(2) and CRC Rule 3.1362.

 

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 all involved parties and/or attorneys as required by law and the California Rules of Court.  The order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20. 

 



9:00

Line: 9

CIV538251     SHANNEL GONZALEZ VS. SAN MATEO COUNTY, ET AL

 

 

SHANNEL GONZALEZ                      DAVID L. MILLIGAN

SAN MATEO COUNTY

 

 

MOTNIO ON DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The general demurrer is sustained with leave to amend to allege facts establishing that plaintiff complied with the claims presentation requirement or that her compliance is excused.

     The form complaint alleges that a claim was required but that plaintiff’s compliance with this requirement is excused due to her reliance on a representation that she had one year in which to present a claim.  See Complaint at Paragraph 9.  These facts are insufficient to show each of the four elements of estoppel.  Plaintiff must plead estoppel with sufficient accuracy to disclose the facts relied upon.   Chalmers v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 46. 

     While plaintiff’s opposition also contends she complied with the claims requirement, that fact is not alleged in the complaint.  The form complaint includes a box to be checked if plt alleges compliance.  Plaintiff did not check that box.  

     Defendants’ request that the complaint be dismissed for failure to timely pay transfer fees is denied.

     Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 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, 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: 10

CLJ525367     JAMES A. STENWALL VS. ANGIE J. DONELSON

 

 

JAMES A. STENWALL                     RICHARD D. CARRINGTON

ANGIE J. DONELSON

 

 

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff James A. Stenwall’s Renewed Motion to Amend the Judgment is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §187. Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence that judgment debtor Angie J. Donelson is also known by the legal name Angela J. Donalson. Plaintiff’s counsel has provided evidence of personal service of defendant Angie J. Donelson at an address known as 91 Thorton Rd., Lafayette, GA., and has now provided specific evidence regarding the asset search and provided evidence showing that the property known as 91 Thorton Rd., Lafayette, GA is owned by Angela J. Donelson.

 

Plaintiff has sufficiently established that Angie J. Donelson is the same as Angela J. Donelson.

 

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: 11

CLJ538955     HEATHER RANGEL VS. MARK DE BIBO

 

 

HEATHER RANGEL                        TED J. HANNIG

MARK DE BIBO

 

 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Petitioner HEATHER RANGEL’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to Civil Code Section 8488(c) (erroneously cited as Code of Civil Procedure Section 8488(c) in both her Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities) is DENIED in its entirety.

 

Respondent has submitted his declaration, as well as the declaration of his assistant, attesting to the fact that Petitioner was notified as of June 24, 2016 that the mechanic’s lien at issue had been removed from her property. (Decl. De Bibo at par. 7; Decl. Corbett at par. 4.) Petitioner submits no evidence denying her knowledge of this fact, nor does she rebut the argument that a simple online search would have revealed the removal of the mechanic’s lien nearly two weeks before the hearing on her petition. The strategic decision for Petitioner and her counsel to proceed with the July 6, 2016 hearing was a waste of the Court’s time and limited resources and was unreasonable.  Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

 

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