March 22, 2017
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 RICHARD H. DuBOIS

Department 16

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 7A

 

Friday, March 17, 2017

 

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-00613     CVI LOAN GT TRUST I vs. JAMES S SCHUBIN, et al.

 

 

CVI LOAN GT TRUST I                   FLINT C. ZIDE

JAMES S. SCHUBIN                      FRED W. SCHWINN

 

 

demurrer to ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Answer to Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Legal conclusions are not sufficient to plead an affirmative defense. FPI v. Nakashima (1991) 213 Cal. App. 3d 367, 384. To properly plead an affirmative defense, the answer must set forth facts “as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and are alleged in the complaint.” Id.

The court acknowledges that the general and universally accepted practice of alleging affirmative defenses is as was done here.  However, upon objection, the court has no choice but to enforce the existing statutes.

 

An amended answer to cross-complaint shall be filed and served on or before April 7, 1017.

 

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: 2

16-CIV-01973     CEPHAS GROUPS, INC., et al. vs. DISASTER RESTORATION

                     AND RECOVERY, INC., et al.

 

CEPHAS GROUPS, INC.                   GOODMAN, MARK A.

DISASTER RESTORATION AND RECOVERY, INC. raja devineni

 

 

demurrer TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (FAC) is SUSTAINED-IN-PART and OVERRULED-IN-PART.  As an initial matter, the Court notes that the meet and confer requirement of Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 430.41 is intended to encourage a good faith attempt to resolve disputes before a Demurrer is filed.  Here, the hearing on Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ original Complaint was continued because Defendants had not met and conferred.  On Feb. 15, 2017, after Plaintiff filed their FAC, Defendants filed another Demurrer, again without meeting and conferring.  On Feb. 22, 2017, after the Demurrer was already filed and served, defense counsel called Plaintiffs’ counsel to discuss their dispute.  The next day, Feb. 23, 2017, Defendants re-filed the Demurrer, this time entitled “Amended Demurrer,” with no changes.  This sequence of events does not suggest a genuine attempt to meet and confer.  However, in order to avoid further delay, the Court will consider the meet and confer requirement to be met.   

 

A Demurrer is not a proper mechanism to enforce an arbitration agreement.  Accordingly, the Demurrer based on Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy is in arbitration is OVERRULED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendants’ right to file a Petition to Compel Arbitration pursuant to the Calif. Arbitration Act, codified in Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1280 et. seq.  Because Defendants have not noticed a Petition to Compel Arbitration, and have not asked the Court to compel arbitration of these claims, the Court will not address the merits of such a Petition, except to say, without deciding the issue, that the FAC’s allegations appear to fall within Section 11 of the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA).  See APA, Sect. 15.13 (stating that disputes falling within Sect. 11 are not covered by the arbitration clause). 

 

The Demurrer to the second cause of action for “fraud-negligent misrepresentation” is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.  Defendants’ argument based on the “economic loss” rule lacks merit.  Defendants contend Plaintiffs’ breach of contract and fraud claims impermissibly overlap.  They argue Plaintiffs cannot state a cause of action for fraud because the alleged misrepresentation(s) occurred in the context of a contract, and both causes of action involve the same claimed damages.  Defendants are incorrect.  A contract breach is not synonymous with fraud, and a fraudulent misrepresentation can occur in the context of contractual relations.  Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 990-92; Harris v. Atlantic Richfield (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 70, 78 (“when one party commits a fraud during the contract formation or performance, the injured party may recover in contract and tort.”); CACI 1902 (“False Promise”) (requiring proof that at the time of entering the contract, defendant had no intention to perform under the contract); Civ. Code Sect. 1572, 1710 (one form of fraud is “a promise made without any intention of performing it).  Here, the FAC appears to allege Defendants committed fraud by (1) entering into the contract without the intention to perform (Parag. 20-21), and (2) after entering into the contract, making several intentionally false statements in order to obtain an offset (Parag 21).  The economic loss rule does not bar the misrepresentation claim(s).      

 

Leave to amend is granted, however, so that Plaintiffs can plead each act of alleged fraud with the required specificity.  Lazar v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631 (“fraud must be pled specifically . . . . This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.”).  Further, in amending the complaint, Plaintiffs should avoid conflating fraud (intentional misrepresentation) with negligent misrepresentation.  They are different causes of action, with different required claim elements.  See CACI 1900, 1902, 1903. 

 

Plaintiffs shall file and serve a Second Amended Complaint on or before April 3, 2017.

 

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: 3

16-CIV-02211     LAWRENCE SHAPIRO vs. ERIC LUNDAHL, et al.

 

 

LAWRENCE SHAPIRO                      MICHAEL V. NUDELMAN

ERIC LUNDAHL                          PETER M. HART

 

 

Demurrer TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Department 16 recuses itself from this matter.  The matter is reassigned to Judge Karesh in department 20 who will issue a tentative ruling.  If either party wishes to appear to argue the matter, they shall appear in department 20 at 2:00 p.m. on March 17, 2017.

 



9:00

Line: 4

16-CLJ-00514     ANDREW BARE vs. MARY RAGO, et al.

 

 

Andrew BARE                           Pro/per

MARY rago                             Colleen Coen

 

 

SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE "ANTI-SLAPP"

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant ANDREW BARE’s Special Motion to Strike the Cross-Complaint of MARY RAGO is DENIED. 

 

Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(b)(1) provides: “A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”

 

Section 425.16(b)(2) further states, “In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.”

 

A defendant specially moving to strike has the burden to show that the conduct underlying a cause of action arises from protected activity. City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 69, 79.  Once this has been established, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim.  Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 958, 965. To do so, the plaintiff must show that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence is credited.  Id.

 

Here, Cross-Defendant has not met his moving burden of demonstrating that the conduct underlying Cross-Complainant’s claims arises from protected activity, as required on the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis.  While Cross-Defendant asserts that the claims set forth in the Cross-Complaint arise out of his filing the instant lawsuit, a plain reading of the Cross-Complaint’s allegations demonstrates otherwise.  Cross-Defendant fails to show how his alleged conduct of presenting a void / invalid Notice of Pendency of Action and misrepresenting his right to possession of the premises at 1900 Willow Road in order to halt or delay its sale constitutes protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.

 

Even if he had met his burden, however, Cross-Complainant has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on her claims for abuse of process, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and related claim for conspiracy.  Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

 

Cross-Complainant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 17, as well as to the judgment in San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. CLJ 538344. 

 

Cross-Defendant’s evidentiary objections are MOOT with respect to Cross-Complainant’s Request for Judicial Notice in light of the above ruling.  Cross-Defendant’s objections to the Declarations of Colleen Coen and Mary Rago are OVERRULED.

 

Cross-Complainant is granted leave to file a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §§ 128.5 and 425.16(c). 

 

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 Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 



9:00

Line: 5

CIV410586     EDITH INGRAM, ET AL. VS. RAMIN YEGANEH, ET AL.

 

 

EDITH M. INGRAM                       MICHAEL M. MARKMAN

RAMIN YEGANEH                         GEORGE P. ESHOO

 

 

Motion to tax costs

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is continued to April 3, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department

 



9:00

Line: 6

CIV524391      ELIZABETH WHITE VS. JEFFERSON UNION COUNTY school

                  district

 

 

ROBERT DOUGLAS                        MICHAEL FLYNN

JEFFERSON UNION COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT JOHN A. SHUPE

 

 

 

Motion to set aside default/judgment

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff’s motion to set aside default and default judgment is denied.  This matter was resolved by way of a settlement and resulting dismissal.  Plaintiff’s prior motions seeking to avoid the settlement have been unsuccessful.  To the extent this motion can be construed as one to set aside the dismissal, plaintiff fails to establish the requisite mistake, surprise, inadvertence or excusable neglect. 

 

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

Lines: 7 - 10

CIV528252     INCLIN, INC. VS. RAZBAN

 

 

ARIA RAZBAN                           IRA LESHIN

AXISTAT CORPORATION                   ROSS BOUGHTON

 

 

7. motion to compel VERIFIED RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET ONE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This motion to compel is moot.  Counsel for the responding party has provided evidence that verified initial and/or supplemental responses have been served.

 

The request for sanctions is reserved and is to be heard on April 13, 2017.

 

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.

 

 

8. motion to compel VERIFIED RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES-employment law, SET ONE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This motion to compel is moot.  Counsel for the responding party has provided evidence that verified initial and/or supplemental responses have been served. 

 

The request for sanctions is reserved and is to be heard on April 13, 2017.

 

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. motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This motion to compel is moot.  Counsel for the responding party has provided evidence that verified initial and/or supplemental responses have been served. 

 

The request for sanctions is reserved and is to be heard on April 13, 2017.

 

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.

 

 

 

10. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS fOR production, set one and to compel production

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents is continued to April 13, 2017 due to the fact that counsel for the responding party did not actually receive the moving papers until March 2, 2017.  Counsel may file any opposition papers no later than April 3, 3017. 

 

 

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: 11

CIV531828     COASTLINE RE HOLDINGS CORP VS. OROVILLE SELF STORAGe llc

 

 

COASTLINE RE HOLDINGS CORP            JAZAYERI, PETER F

OROVILLE SELF STORAGE LLC

 

motion for order (1) APPROVING RECEIVER'S FINAL ACCOUNTING; (2) APPROVING RECEIVER'S FEES AND EXPENSES; (3) APPROVING DISBURSEMENTS; (4) DISCHARGING THE RECEIVER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is continued to March 23, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., to be heard in Department 28

 



9:00

Line: 12

CLJ212135     MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA VS. JOHN WILLIAMS, ET AL.

 

 

MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA              DANIEL BORNSTEIN

JOHN WILLIAMS                         JULIET BRODIE

 

 

motion for judgment UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 664.6

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is dropped from the Law and Motion calendar.  The resolution of this issue requires oral testimony and there is no testimony allowed on the Law and Motion calendar.  Plaintiff shall request this matter be set on the unlawful detainer evidentiary calendar or on the Presiding Judge’s calendar.

 

 



9:01

Line: 13

CIV538644     FOUSSENYI SOW VS. QUINSTREET, INC.

 

 

FOUSSENYI SOW                         EMMANUEL NSAHLAI

QUINSTREET, INC.                      PETER DANIEL

 

 

motion for order COMPELLING RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, THAT MATTERS IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED, AND IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel plaintiff to provide further responses to discovery is GRANTED as to:

 

Form Interrogatories 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1 and 50.1

      

Special Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 24 and 25

 

Requests for Production of Documents 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23

 

Plaintiff shall provide further responses without objection (other than one based on third party privacy rights) within 5 days of this order.  To the extent plaintiff asserts objections based on third party privacy rights, defendant has not established that such rights were waived by plaintiff’s failure to serve timely discovery responses.  However, plaintiff shall provide a privilege log to establish the existence of third party privacy rights for any document withheld on that basis. 

 

The motion is denied as to Form Interrogatory 17.1. 

 

The motion to deem matters in requests for admission to be admitted is denied.  Defendant has not provided any evidence of plaintiff’s failure to respond to this discovery.  It merely makes the assertion in its memorandum of points and authorities and separate statement that no responses were received.  This issue was not addressed in the Daniel declaration.

 

The request for sanctions is granted.  Plaintiff shall pay defendant $5,500 within 15 days of notice of entry of this 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 Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 



 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Special Set Calendar

Judge: Honorable JONATHAN E.KARESH

Department 20

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 8C

 

Friday, March 17, 2017

 

If you plan to appear on any case on this calendar,

 you must call (650) 261-5120 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

10:30

Line: 1

CIV538181     WALTER & BONNIE HARRELL VS. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL

 

 

BONNIE HARRELL                        Pro/per

RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.

 

 

Motion for Reconsideration

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion for Reconsideration is reset to April 28, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 20.

 

 



10:30

Line: 2

16-CIV-00691     GERALDINE TEMPLO, et al vs. JAMES SHI MING LU, et al.

 

 

MARK TEMPLO                           GEOFFREY BECKER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA                   LUCY F. WANG

 

 

Motion for new trial

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion for New Trial is Denied.

 



2:00

Line: 3

16-CIV-02211     LAWRENCE SHAPIRO vs. ERIC LUNDAHL, et al.

 

 

LAWRENCE SHAPIRO                      MICHAEL V. NUDELMAN

ERIC LUNDAHL                          PETER M. HART

 

 

Demurrer TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

 

The Demurrer and Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint by Defendant Eric Lundahl (“Defendant”) is ruled on as follows: 

 

MOTION TO QUASH

Defendant seeks to quash service of the summons and complaint to the extent that Plaintiff claims that Defendant was served as the agent for service of process for Baja Pirates California, Baja Pirates Mexico, Baja Pirates a business organization form unknown, and Baja Pirates a Mexican business organization form unknown (collectively “Baja Pirates entities”). 

 

Plaintiff asserts only that Defendant has waived this argument by filing a demurrer, which constitutes a general appearance.  However, the demurrer is brought only by Defendant and thus constitutes a general appearance only as to himself, not the Baja Pirates entities.  (See Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Sparks Const., Inc. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1145 (“An appearance is general if the party contests the merits of the case or raises other than jurisdictional objections.”).)   Instead, Defendant seeks to quash the summons if he was served on behalf of the Baja Pirates entities, claiming he is not an authorized agent for service of process for these entities.  Thus, this argument is not waived. 

 

“When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process the burden is on the plaintiff to prove … the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)

 

Plaintiff fails to present evidence to establish that the Baja Pirates entities have been properly served by serving Defendant.  Accordingly, the motion to quash is GRANTED.  Any purported service on the Baja Pirates entities by serving Defendant is hereby QUASHED.

 

 

 

 

 

DEMURRER

Defendant’s Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Intentional Tort is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, to allege facts sufficient to support an intentional tort by Defendant.

 

Defendant’s Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Negligence is OVERRULED.  Defendant demurs that this claim fails because Plaintiff’s verified interrogatory response in a prior action contradicts the allegation in the Complaint here that Defendant was piloting the airplane.  Defendant asserts that the court may therefore take judicial notice of this response.  This response does not contradict the allegation though, since it appears that Defendant was the pilot at some point and therefore may have caused the crash, as alleged by Plaintiff. 

 

Plaintiff shall have twenty days from service of the Notice of Entry of Order to file and serve a First Amended Complaint.  Defendant shall have twenty days thereafter to file and serve a response.

 

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibits A-D, is GRANTED.  (See Evid. Code sec. 452(d).)

 

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice of Exhs. E and F, is DENIED.

 

The court has considered Plaintiff’s objections in ruling on Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice. 

 

 

 



 


 

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 25

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2G

 

Friday, March 17, 2017

 

IF YOU INTEND TO APPEAR ON ANY CASE ON THIS CALENDAR YOU MUST DO THE FOLLOWING:

1. YOU MUST CALL (650) 261-5125 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

Line: 1

CIV522387     ALLA V. LA GRAVE VS. BREEVAST U.S., INC.

 

 

ALLA V. LA GRAVE                      STEPHEN J. GOROG

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE CONCEPTS, LLC   DANIEL L. MCCRARY

 

Statement of Decision

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Appear.



9:00

Line: 2

CIV525758     N.A. SALES COMPANY, INC. VS. HAE-SUK LEE, et al.

 

 

N.A. SALES COMPANY, INC.              brian h. song

PACIFIC COMMON ENTERPRISE, LLC 

 

 

Motion for Attorney's Fees

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Appear.

 


 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County