Jul 04, 2015

TENTATIVE RULINGS
LAW & MOTION CALENDAR
Wednesday, JULY 1, 2015, 3:00 p.m.
Courtroom 16 - Hon. Elliot Lee Daum
3035 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 200, Santa Rosa


CourtCall is available for all Law & Motion appearances, EXCEPT parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption which are mandatory appearances. Please contact CourtCall directly at (888) 882-6878.

The following tentative rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, YOU MUST notify Judge Nadler’s Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6547, and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, June 30, 2015. Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.

 

 

 

 

 

1. MCV-210296; Capital One Bank v. Macneil

Appearance required (Claim of Exemption).

 

 

2. MCV-221210; Creditors Trade Association v. Syed

Defendant Asimuddin Syed and Akbar Matani’s Motion for Attorney’s fees on appeal is granted.  Defendants are awarded fees in the sum of $5,963.75.

 

 

3. SCV-251135; Sloane v. Wells Fargo

The court denies this petition.  VINCENT SLOANE, III is the proper individual to take action regarding this claim.  His exclusive remedy is arbitration.  The petition was defective when prepared, as it stated that there was no other claim.  It was defectively served, not having been served on John A. Kelly at all.  Further, the purported petitioner is acting through an unlicensed attorney-in-fact, Vincent Sloane, III, not VINCENT SLOANE, JR.

 

 

4. SCV-253982; Marzo v. Kerkhof

The motion filed by Plaintiff Marzo to amend the Complaint is granted.

 

 

5. SCV-255088; Frey v. Carrington

Summary judgment is denied as to the entire action.  Summary adjudication is granted as to the Wrongful Foreclosure and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress claims.

Evidentiary Objections

I. Plaintiffs’ Objections

All of Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections are overruled as they have failed to identify grounds for their objections.  (CRC 3.1354 subd. (b).)

II. Defendant’s Objections

The Defendant’s objections are overruled as procedurally improper as they were not filed separately from the separate statement.  (CRC 3.1354 subd. (b).)

 

6. SCV-255767; Sutidze v. Resort at Indian Springs

Pursuant to CCP §392(a) and the authority found in Standard Brands of Cal. v. Bryce (1934) 1 Cal.2d at 718, the Court transfers this action to the Superior Court of Napa County.  Defendant’s request for judicial notice of items 1-3 is granted.  Any hearing requests will be heard on July 15, 2015.          

 

 

7. SCV-256242; Riley v. Volunteer Center

The Motion to Strike is granted.  The motion to strike attorney’s fees from Plaintiff’s Complaint is granted.  The court will strike the words: “and attorney’s fee” from Plaintiff’s Complaint.

 

Defendant is to answer Plaintiff’s Complaint as stricken.

 

 

8. SCV-256501; Hermone v. Allred

The motion to strike the words “and physicians” is denied.  The motions to stike “punitive damages and attorney’s fees” are granted.

 

The court will strike the words “4. For exemplary damages in a sum according to proof; 5. For attorney’s fees according to proof:’ from Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

 

Defendant is to answer Plaintiff’s Complaint as amended within 30 days.

 

 

9. SCV-256913; In Re: B. Rubenstein

The Purchase Agreement providing for the transfer of structured settlement payment rights by and between Ben Rubenstein, and Petitioner WALL-ACE, LLC is approved.    

 

The Court finds:

 

(1) The transfer is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents.

 

(2) The payee has been advised in writing by the transferee to seek independent professional advice regarding the transfer and has either received that advice or knowingly waived, in writing, the opportunity to receive the advice.

 

(3) The transferee has complied with the notification requirements pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f), the transferee has provided the payee with a disclosure form that complies with Section 10136, and the transfer agreement complies with Sections 10136 and 10138.

 

(4) The transfer does not contravene any applicable statute or the order of any court or other government authority.

 

(5) The payee understands the terms of the transfer agreement, including the terms set forth in the disclosure statement required by Section 10136.

 

(6) The payee understands and does not wish to exercise the payee's right to cancel the transfer agreement.”

 

 

10. SCV-256996; Weinstein v. Fuel from the Sun

Application is granted subject to Plaintiff posting the required undertaking.

 

© 2015 Superior Court of Sonoma County