NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Law and Motion Calendar Judge: HONORABLE SUSAN GREENBERG Department County Center, Redwood City Courtroom 2B Thursday, May 10, 2018 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) 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 (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 The Court will expect all exhibits to be tabbed accordingly. Case Title / Nature of Case

2 May 10, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 2 LINE: 1 16-CIV LEON RADER VS. CHEVRA KADISHA-SINAI MEMORIAL CHAPEL, ET AL. LEON RADER CHEVRA KADISHA-SINAI MEMORIAL CHAPEL RONALD D. FOREMAN KASEY A. COVERT MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AGAINST PLAINTIFF LEON RADER DBA ART IN STONE BY CHEVRA KADISHA-SINAI MEMORIAL CHAPEL DBA SINAI MEMORIAL CHAPEL, SAMUEL SALKIN AND THOMAS V. HALLORAN Defendants CHEVRA KADISHA-SINAI MEMORIAL CHAPEL dba SINAI MEMORIAL CHAPEL; SAMUEL SALKIN and THOMAS V. HALLORAN s Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED in its entirety. There are clear triable issues of material fact as to Defendants Undisputed Material Facts ( UMF s) Nos. 9, 11, 19, 25, 28, 29, 34, 35, 41, 42, 43 and 44, such that summary adjudication of Plaintiff s Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action is inappropriate. Code Civ. Proc. 437c. Plaintiff s evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Samuel Salkin is OVERRULED as to Objection Nos Plaintiff s evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Thomas Halloran is OVERRULED as to Objection No. 1. Defendants evidentiary objections are OVERRULED as to Objection Nos and No. 18 (erroneously numbered 16).

3 May 10, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 3 LINE: 2 16-CIV RODNEY RYCE VS. EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT, ET AL. RODNEY RYCE EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT JON R. PARSONS STEVEN D. WERTH DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT, GLENDA SAVAGE, BETSY YANEZ, JOAN SYKES-MIESSI AND KAREN MAXEY The hearing on the Demurrer is continued to May 30, 2018 at A.M. on the Law & Motion calendar. Demurring Defendants failed to comply with the statutory requirement to meet and confer in person or by telephone before filing their Demurrer. (Code of Civil Procedure ; see also Judicial Council Form CIV-140, Box 1 (Declaration of Demurring Party Regarding Meet and Confer).) The parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or by telephone. No later than May 21, 2018, Demurring parties shall file and serve a declaration meeting the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure (a)(2) & (3).

4 May 10, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 4 LINE: 3 17-CIV JOY RAMOS VS. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ET AL. JOY RAMOS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC JOHN E. STRINGER ALISON V. LIPPA MOTION TO DISMISS ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE AND FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC The Motion of Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC ( Defendant ) to Dismiss Entire Action with Prejudice and for Entry of Judgment is ruled on as follows: The Court previously granted Defendant s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with leave to amend as to the entire First Amended Complaint. (See Court s January 30, 2018 Order.) On January 31, 2018, Defendant served Notice of Entry of Order on Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff had 30 days thereafter, plus an extra 5 days for mailing, to file and serve a Second Amended Complaint. (See C.C.P. 438(h)(2) and 1013(a).) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Although Plaintiff asks for leave to file an amended complaint, there is no motion for leave to amend pending and, therefore, this request is not properly before the Court. Even if it were, Plaintiff fails to explain why she failed to timely amend the complaint or seek leave to amend prior to Defendant bringing this motion. Accordingly, Defendant is DISMISSED from this action WITH PREJUDICE, and a judgment of dismissal is to be entered in favor of Defendant. (See C.C.P. 438(h)(4)(C).)

5 May 10, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 5 LINE: 4 17-CIV RENE GAINES, ET AL. VS. MANANA KOZLOVA, ET AL. RENE GAINES MANANA KOZLOVA ALEX LEMIEUX MARC D. BENDER MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA PROPOUNDED ON EAST WEST BANK BY MANANA KOZLOVA AND VYSOCHIN VITALY The Motion to Quash Subpoena brought by Defendants Manana Kozlova and Vysochin Vitaly (collectively, the Defendants ) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs have subpoenaed documents regarding Defendants mortgage on the property that is the subject of this civil landlord-detainer lawsuit regarding, inter alia, habitability. Plaintiffs seek documents regarding mortgage financing, insurance services and policies, and purchase and sale documents pertaining to the property. However, such information is protected financial information. Cal. Const., Art. I, Sec. 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552; Cobb v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 543, 550; Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656; Fortunado v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 481. To override such a privacy interest, held by a bank customer, a court should consider: (1) the purposes of the information sought, (2) the effect disclosure will have on the parties and on the trial, (3) the nature of the obligations urged by the party resisting disclosure, and (4) the Court s ability to make an order that presents an alternative to complete disclosure. Fortunado v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 481, citing Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656. The information sought here is not relevant to the claims being made. In their own words, Plaintiffs describe that their interest in the information at issue is based on a theory that Defendants fraudulently represented to financial institutions that the property would be used as their primary residence, while simultaneously holding it out to Plaintiffs as a tenable house available for rent. Opp. at p. 2:1-3 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs are not financial institutions so Plaintiffs do not have standing to assert a fraud claim based on misrepresentations contained in loan documents to the bank. To balance the interests when considering whether to override a privacy protection, courts normally indulge in a careful balancing of the rights of civil litigants to discover relevant facts, on the one hand, with the right of bank customers to maintain reasonable privacy regarding their financial affairs, on the other. Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 657. The relevance of the information sought in this case is so attenuated that it offers almost no weight in considering balancing it against Defendants privacy interest in their financial affairs.

6 May 10, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 6

7 May 10, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 7 LINE: 5 17-CIV ROBERT J. MILLER VS. QUILAN K. EDDY, ET AL. ROBERT J. MILLER QUINLAN K. EDDY DEREK J. STAFFORD MARK D. HUDAK MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION BY QUINLAN K. EDDY By order of the Presiding Judge, this matter shall be heard on May 10, 2018 at A.M. on the Presiding Judge Law & Motion calendar.

8 May 10, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 8 LINE: 6 17-CLJ CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. VS. NORA I. CECILIANO, ET AL. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. NORA I. CECILIANO ELIZABETH A. BLEIER PRO/PER MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BY CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. The unopposed Motion is granted pursuant to CCP 438(c)(1)(A). Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $11, Costs may be sought pursuant to applicable post judgment procedures.

9 May 10, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 9 LINE: 7 18-CIV L7LC VS. TEVADERM LLC, ET AL. L7LC TEVADERM LLC BRUCE L. ISHIMATSU BRIDGET R. O'HARA MOTION TO VACATE ENTRY OF SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT BY TEVADERM LLC AND TERRIE ABSHER KOCHMAN This hearing is dropped from calendar. A dismissal was filed

10 May 10, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 10 LINE: 8 CIV COUNTY OF SAN MATEO VS MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, LLC, ET AL. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 2700 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, LLC JOHN D. NIBBELIN RONALD D. FOREMAN MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL BY RONALD D. FOREMAN The Motion is denied for failure to provide proof that all required documents were served in compliance with CRC (d) and CCP The POS does not indicate that the moving papers were served on Defendants, and mail service on April 16, 2018 did not provide the notice required by CCP 1005.

11 May 10, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 11 LINE: 9 CIV COUNTY OF SAN MATEO VS MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, LLC, ET AL. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 2700 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, LLC JOHN D. NIBBELIN RONALD D. FOREMAN MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL BY RONALD D. FOREMAN The Motion is denied for failure to provide proof that all required documents were served in compliance with CRC (d) and CCP The POS does not indicate that the moving papers were served on Defendants, and mail service on April 16, 2018 did not provide the notice required by CCP 1005.

12 May 10, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 12 LINE: 10 CIV COUNTY OF SAN MATEO VS MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, LLC, ET AL. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 2700 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, LLC JOHN D. NIBBELIN RONALD D. FOREMAN MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL BY RONALD D. FOREMAN The Motion is denied for failure to provide proof that all required documents were served in compliance with CRC (d) and CCP The POS does not indicate that the moving papers were served on Defendants, and mail service on April 16, 2018 did not provide the notice required by CCP 1005.

13 May 10, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 13 LINE: 11 CLJ GISSELLE B. DUGAN VS. MILAGROS BANEZ DEHEZA, ET AL. GISSELLE B. DUGAN MILAGROS BANEZ DEHESA JAMES D. FRANGOS MARK CARBONE MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO SERVE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WITHIN THREE YEARS BY MILAGROS BANEZ DEHESA The unopposed Motion to Dismiss is granted without prejudice pursuant to CCP and 581(g). Court records indicate this action was filed on September 24, 2014 and that, to date, no proof of service of the summons and complaint has been filed. POSTED: 3:00 PM