August 20, 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

 

Monday, August 21, 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-02616     STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA vs. ROBERT E. DRESCHER

 

 

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA                ROBERT A. HENDERSON

ROBERT E. DRESCHER                     pRO/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING DISBURSAL OF TRUST ACCOUNT FUNDS BY THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion for Instructions Concerning Disbursal of Trust Account Funds is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 2, 2017 at 9:00 A.M. on the Law and Motion calendar.

 

Service of the present Motion fails to comply with statutory requirements regarding out-of-state recipients Rawlings Company, Andrew Drescher and Leslie Drescher.  Time for service (16 court days) is extended by “10 calendar days if . . . the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States.”  (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013, subd. (a).)  Service on out-of-state addressees should have occurred by July 18, 2017.  State Bar served this Motion on July 21, 2017.

 

Further, the Motion lacks evidentiary support.  The Declaration of Robert Henderson contains none of the facts set forth in the Points and Authorities, including but not limited to:  (1) agreement by the Stubblefields concerning disbursement of funds, (2) the contingency agreement for the Ingraham matter, (3) calculation of the amount purportedly owed to Ingraham, (4) the oral fee agreement with Debra Michel, (5) calculation of the amount purportedly owed to Debra Michel, (6) calculation of the amount purportedly owed to Dr. Bruce Hall, (7) the reason for any monies owed to Dr. Bruce Hall.

 

Finally, State Bar is directed to comply with all California Rules of Court, including Rule 2.109 (all pages must be numbered).

 

State Bar shall provide notice of the continued hearing date.  Service of notice upon all addressees shall comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1005 and 1013.

 

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-02790     MICHAEL PRICE vs. RAMON CHITO NAZARIO, et al.

 

 

MICHAEL PRICE                          J. KEVIN MORRISON

RAMON CHITO NAZARIO                    Pro/PER

 

 

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT BY RAMON NAZARIO

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is dropped from calendar as the action has been dismissed.

 


9:00

Line: 3

17-UDL-00259     Buenaventura Gepila vs. Milagros Miranda, et al.

 

 

Buenaventura Gepila                    Pro/PER

Milagros Miranda                       PRO/PER

 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY Milagros Miranda AND ARMI MIRANDA

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The unopposed Motion of Defendants Milagros Miranda and Armi Miranda (“Defendants”) to Set Aside Default and Vacate Default Judgment is GRANTED.  The Default and Default Judgment entered on April 18, 2017 are hereby SET ASIDE and VACATED.

 

Defendants are to file and serve their proposed Answer by August 28, 2017.  NOTE:  The proposed Answer submitted with this Motion is not deemed filed.

 

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: 4

17-UDL-00492     EQUITY GROWTH ASSET MANAGEMENT vs. WILFRED SHAW, et al.

 

 

EQUITY GROWTH ASSET MANAGEMENT          Jak Marquez

WILFRED SHAW                           Pro/PER

 

 

DEMURRER To PLANTIFF’s COMPLAINT BY WILFRED SHAW

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Demurrer is OVERRULED on all grounds.  The Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161a(b)(3) and it is not uncertain.  To the extent Defendant also demurs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.10(b), nothing on the face of the Complaint indicates Plaintiff lacks the legal capacity to bring this action.  Defendant shall file and serve an Answer on or before August 25, 2017.

 

The Complaint alleges the essential elements of an unlawful detainer action and is not uncertain.  Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161a(b)(3) provides that a person who continues to be in possession of real property after service of a 3-day Notice to Quit may be removed pursuant to the unlawful detainer procedure where the property has been sold in accordance with Civil Code Section 2924 under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust executed by such person. 

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff became the owner of the subject property by virtue of a trustee’s deed upon sale following its successful bid at a trustee’s sale on May 19, 2017.  A copy of the recorded Trustee’s Deed is attached to the Complaint and incorporated by reference.  It states that all requirements of law regarding mailing or publication of the notice of default and notice of sale have been complied with.  This recital gives rise to a presumption that the sale was properly conducted.  Civil Code Section 2924(c).  

The Complaint further alleges that Defendant was served with a 3-day Notice to Quit by posting and mailing on May 26, 2017.  A copy of the Notice and a Proof of Service are attached to the Complaint and incorporated by reference.  Lastly, the Complaint states that Defendant is in possession of the premises and failed to comply with the terms of the Notice by its expiration date. 

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: 5

CIV536445     JULIO C. TORRES-GARCIA VS. WERNER CO., ET AL.

 

 

JULIO C. TORRES-GARCIA                 ROBERT E. CARTWRIGHT, JR.

WERNER CO.                             MICHAEL J. TERHAR

 

 

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FATIH SETTLEMENT by EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY (ECIC)’s unopposed Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.  Applying the factors enumerated in Tech-Bilt v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, the Court is satisfied that the settlement reached between ECIC and Plaintiff JULIO TORRES-GARCIA is not “so far out of the ballpark” as to make the settlement unreasonable.  Id. at 499-500; Code Civil Procedure Section 877.6.

 

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, ECIC 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: 6

CIV538858     ELIZABETH MEYERS VS. MARY FIELD, ET AL.

 

 

ELIZABETH MEYERS                       Pro/PER

MARY FIELD                             Michael A. Bracco

 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY REQUESTS BY Mary Field and Thomas C. Field

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery is DENIED for failure to provide Plaintiff with the notice required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005. 

 

Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005 requires the moving papers to be served sixteen court days before the hearing date plus an additional five calendar days when service is accomplished by mail.  In this case, the Proof of Service indicates the Motion was served by mail on July 26, 2017.  Such service gave Plaintiff only sixteen court days plus two calendar days’ notice. 

 

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

CLJ538018     COUNTY OF SAN MATEO VS. JANUAR ARELLANO

 

 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO                    JAN E. ELLARD

JANUAR ARELLANO                        Pro/PER

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS BY COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Order Establishing Admissions is GRANTED.  The genuineness of any document and the truth of any matters in the Requests for Admission are deemed admitted. 

 

The Request for Sanctions is also granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.280(c).  Defendant shall pay Plaintiff $232.00 on or before September 22, 2017. 

 

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, Plaintiff 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.

 


 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County