IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Special Set Calendar Judge: HONORABLE JOSEPH C. SCOTT Department County Center, Redwood City Courtroom 2G Tuesday, June 12, 2018 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. 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 The Court will expect all exhibits to be tabbed accordingly. Case LINE: 1 17-CIV Title / Nature of Case GILBERT RAMIREZ VS. JBC DELIVERIES CORP., ET AL. GILBERT RAMIREZ JBC DELIVERIES CORP. PRO SE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT AFTER TRIAL DATE SET The Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint After Trial Date Set by Defendant DSI Logistics, Inc. is DENIED. The requested relief does not proscribe with the time requirements of CCP and San Mateo

2 June 12, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 2 County Local Rule 2.3(C)(2) for the filing of a cross complaint. DSI failed to present any cogent arguments to support a finding that allowing them to file a cross-complaint against JBC at this stage of the litigation would be in the interest of justice, especially since DSI had ample knowledge, time and opportunity to file a crosscomplaint against JBC within the statutory time period and did not do so. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule (a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

3 June 12, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 3 LINE: 2 17-CIV YOSHIKO YAMADA VS. WILLOW/GRAND NORTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, ET AL. YOSHIKO YAMADA WILLOW/GRAND NORTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION STEVEN C. WILLIAMS EMILY D. BERGSTROM DEMURRER The demurring party, Defendant The Manor Association, Inc., failed to file a declaration, as required by Code Civ. Proc (a)(3), showing that the parties met and conferred in person or by telephone (or at a minimum, that an attempt was made to actually speak) for the purpose of determining whether an agreement could be reached to resolve the objections raised in the demurrer. The March 6,2018 declaration of Michon Spinelli indicates only that on , she wrote a letter to Plaintiff's counsel, who did not respond. A letter does not suffice. In fact, all parties in this case were reminded of this requirement recently, when the Court continued the hearing on Defendant Axis Services, Inc. s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (FAC) for the same reason. See Minute Order. Counsel for Defendant The Manor Association, Inc. filed a codecompliant declaration when demurring to Plaintiff s original Complaint (see Spinelli Decl.), but for some reason failed to do so for the present demurrer. The hearing on The Manor Association, Inc. s demurrer to Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint is continued to June 27, 2018 at 9 am in the Law & Motion Department to give the parties time to properly meet and confer. The demurring party is required to file, no later than 7 days prior to the new hearing date, a code-compliant declaration stating either: (1) the parties have met and conferred and (a) the parties have resolved the objections raised in the demurrer, and thus the hearing 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 the meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith. If the demurring party fails to file and serve a declaration demonstrating compliance with , the demurrer may be stricken as procedurally improper.

4 June 12, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 4 If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule (a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

5 June 12, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 5 LINE: 3 17-CIV ROSHNI MOHAMMED VS. DEVIKA SHARMA, ET AL. ROSHNI MOHAMMED DEVIKA SHARMA NICOLE E. PARSONS CHRISTOPHER J. BEEMAN DEFENDANT S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY Off Calendar at the request of the moving party.

6 June 12, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 6 LINE: 4 17-CIV TOM TANG VS. WAI CHI YU, ET AL. TOM TANG WAI CHI YU HAOHAO SONG ALBERT BOASBERG PLAINTIFF TOM TANG S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT WAI CHI CORPORATION S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS The unopposed Motion by Plaintiff Tom Tang ( Plaintiff ) to Compel Defendant Wai Wai Corporation ( Defendant )to provide Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents as well as Request for Monetary Sanctions by Plaintiff is GRANTED. The verifications provided with Defendant s initial responses are undated, and therefore Defendant is ordered to serve completed verifications for these responses. In addition, Defendant is ordered to provide further verified responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories, Set One, nos. 6 and 7. The records provided in response to Special Interrogatories nos. 6 and 7 are illegible. Defendant is ordered to provide full and complete responses that comply with Code of Civil Procedure section Defendant is also ordered to provide further verified responses, without objections, to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, nos. 3-7, 9, and Plaintiff is to provide a separate response for each request, and the response must comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections and Defendant and Defendant s counsel are ordered to pay sanctions of $1, to Plaintiff. The verifications and further verified responses shall be served, and payment of sanctions made by Defendant no later than July 12, 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 , and provide notice thereof to the

7 June 12, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 7 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.

8 June 12, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 8 LINE: 5 18-CIV DEBORAH ACKER VS. MERRICK DOWSON DEBORAH ACKER MERRICK DOWSON KATARINA CANLAS ANTHONY D. GILES PLAINTIFF S DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT S CROSS COMPLAINT A. First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract) Demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED. 1. The Pleading Sufficiently Alleges that the Agreement Was Implied. The cross-complaint alleges that DOWSON lent money to ACKER to pay for a pre-marital debt, and that the parties understood that repayment of the loan would not be enforced so long as the marriage was intact. The allegations are sufficient to indicate that the alleged agreement was implied in fact. 2. The Pleading Does not Disclose that this Court Lacks Jurisdiction. Property division jurisdiction under the Family Code extends only to the community estate. Therefore, unless the parties have stipulated to characterization of their marital assets and debts or divided the community estate by agreement, the court's duty to effect an equal division of the community estate necessarily includes jurisdiction to resolve all characterization disputes. (Fam. Code 2550, 2551; Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 962.) Although the parties are involved in a marital dissolution action in El Dorado County, the demurrer offers no showing that Cross-Complainant s 401(k) account, Cross-Defendant s credit card debt, or the alleged repayment obligation to Cross-complainant is a community property issue in that action. This Court cannot merely assume that those property issues fall within the jurisdiction of the Family Law Court in El Dorado. The Cross-complaint alleges that the money from the 401(k) was separate property, the money was used to pay Cross-Defendant s separate-property credit card debt, and Cross-Defendant failed to repay the money. On their face, these allegations invoke only separate-property issues. Therefore, absent any allegations or judicially noticeable matter showing that the 401(k) funds,

9 June 12, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 9 the subject credit card debt, or alleged debt was community property, there is no showing that the claim in the first cause of action is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the El Dorado Court. B. Second Cause of Action (Money Had and Received). Demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED. The sole basis for demurrer to the second cause of action is that it fails if the first cause of action for breach of contract fails. (Moving P&A at 6:15-26.) Since the contract claim does not, on its face, fail to state a claim, demurrer to the second cause of action lacks merit. Cross-defendant Acker shall file her Answer no later than July 3, 2018, or two weeks after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever is later. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Cross-complainant Dowson shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court s ruling for the Court s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule , and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

10 June 12, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 10 LINE: 6 18-CIV AVONTE CAMPINHA-BACOTE VS. CARRIE BRAUN AVONTE CAMPINHA-BACOTE CARRIE BRAUN PRO/PER CLAUDIA SPRIGGS CARRIE BRAUN S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SIMMONS AND COMPLAINT The unopposed Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint brought by Defendant Carrie Braun via special appearance is GRANTED. Plaintiff has not met his burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that minimum contacts exist between Defendant and the State of California to justify the imposition of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Specially appearing 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 , 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.

11 June 12, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 11 LINE: 7 18-UDL ANDRES HUERTA VS. ANTONIA WICHERS, ET AL. ANDRES HUERTA ANTONIA WICHERS JESSICA PERL TREVOR J. YAN DEFENDANT S MOTION TO STRIKE UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT Moot. Dismissal of action filed on May 29, 2018.

12 June 12, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 12 LINE: 8 CIV COUNTY OF SAN MATEO VS MIDDLEFIELD, ETAL COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 2700 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, LLC JOHN D. NIBBELIN RONALD D. FOREMAN MOTION FOR ORDER The motion by Defendant 2700 Middlefield Road LLC, Ferrando Diversified Capital LLC, and Nariman Teymourian to Prevent a Miscarriage of Justice Of the Premature Entry of Stipulated Judgment That is Void and Inconsistent With An April 28, 2017 Settlement and General Mutual Release Executed By the Parties is DENIED. There is no dispute that Moving Parties signed the Stipulation to Judgment and therefore made an objective manifestation of consent to its terms, notwithstanding the fact that the Stipulated Judgment contained terms that were not expressly provided in the settlement. There is no dispute that the settlement provided for an entry of a money judgment in the event of breach, and the obvious effect of the entry of a money judgment or a specified amount is to permit collection of that specified amount. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule (a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

13 June 12, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 13 LINE: 9 CIV COUNTY OF SAN MATEO VS 2700 MIDDLEFIELD, ET AL. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 2700 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, LLC JOHN D. NIBBELIN RONALD D. FOREMAN RONALD D. FOREMAN S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL The unopposed motion to be relieved as counsel of record is GRANTED. Moving attorney is directed to prepare a written order on the appropriate judicial council form consistent with the Court s ruling for the Court s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule , 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.

14 June 12, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 14 LINE: 10 CIV COUNTY OF SAN MATEO VS 2700 MIDDLEFIELD, ET AL. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 2700 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, LLC JOHN D. NIBBELIN RONALD D. FOREMAN RONALD D. FOREMAN S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL The unopposed motion to be relieved as counsel of record is GRANTED. Moving attorney is directed to prepare a written order on the appropriate judicial council form consistent with the Court s ruling for the Court s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule , 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.

15 June 12, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 15 LINE: 11 CIV COUNTY OF SAN MATEO VS MIDDLEFIELD, ET AL. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 2700 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, LLC JOHN D. NIBBELIN RONALD D. FOREMAN RONALD D. FOREMAN S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL The unopposed motion to be relieved as counsel of record is GRANTED. Moving attorney is directed to prepare a written order on the appropriate judicial council form consistent with the Court s ruling for the Court s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule , 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. POSTED: 3:00 PM