Jan 16, 2017

 

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2017, 3:00 P.M.

Courtroom 16 – Hon. Nancy Case Shaffer

3035 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa

 

 

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 will need to contact the Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6729 by 4:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, January 10, 2017.  Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.  Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.

 

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

 

 

  

 

1.  MSC-184579, Whitaker v. Mercado

Defendant’s unopposed motion to set aside judgment and/or for entry of Satisfaction of Judgment is granted as follows.  Proof having been made to the satisfaction of the court the court finds that this matter was settled for the amount of $10,000 and that plaintiff signed a release of defendant and defendant’s insurer on November 21, 2014 and negotiated the settlement check on or about December 8, 2014 (See, Exhibit A to the Declaration of Lourdes Ceja in support of this motion).   Plaintiff subsequently obtained a judgment against defendant on February 6, 2015.  Defendant is entitled to receive an executed satisfaction of judgment from the plaintiff.  (CCP § 116.850(a).)  The declarations in support of this motion to do not indicate whether a Satisfaction of Judgment was ever demanded from Plaintiff.  (CCP 116.850(b).)  Accordingly, defendant is ordered to provide a Satisfaction of Judgment in proper form to Plaintiff together with a copy of the written order on this motion.  Plaintiff shall have the statutory time (fourteen days) to acknowledge satisfaction of the judgment in this action.  If he fails to execute and return the Satisfaction of Judgment to defendant, without just cause, defendant may submit the Satisfaction of Judgment to the clerk.   (CCP 116.850(c)(2).

Defendant shall submit a written order consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.

 

2.  SCV-255174, Lippard v. G&C Autobody

Defendant G&C Autobody demurs to the Tenth Cause of Action and brings a companion Motion to Strike.

The Second Amended Complaint alleges facts sufficient to support the Tenth Cause of Action with respect to Plaintiffs Mata and Steiner, and therefore the demurrer is overruled as to them.  It fails to allege facts to state a cause of action for fraud as to Plaintiffs Lippard, Medeiros, Edwards, Felsch, and Sanchez.  Accordingly, the demurrer to the Tenth Cause of Action as to them is sustained, without leave to amend.

The Defendants’ motion to strike the SS-8 allegations and punitive damages claims as to Defendant G&C Auto Body Inc. are denied  as to Plaintiffs Mata and Steiner and granted as to Plaintiffs Lippard, Medeiros, Edwards, Felsch, and Sanchez, without leave to amend.  Defendant Crozat’s motion to strike the claim for punitive damages is granted with leave to amend as to Plaintiffs Mata and Steiner; and granted without leave to amend as to Plaintiffs Lippard, Medeiros, Edwards, Felsch, and Sanchez.  The Defendants’ motion to strike with respect to the attorney fees claim is denied.

The Defendants shall submit an order consistent with this ruling.  (Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

 

3.  SCV-257842, Robertson v. Castro-Naal

Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request, the motion by Defendant’s for summary judgment/adjudication is continued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h) to April 12, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 16 in order to allow for the production of discovery by the Sonoma County Probation Department and to take the deposition of Defendant Luis Castro.  (See Malloy Dec. ¶¶ 4-5; and Dee v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 30, 34.)  Plaintiffs may file a supplemental opposition, including any supporting papers and evidence not less than 14 days in advance of the continued hearing date. The moving Defendants may file any amended reply, limited to the scope of the supplemental opposition, not less than five days in advance of the continued hearing.

Defendants shall submit a written order consistent with this ruling.  (Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

 

4.  SCV-258010, Sonoma Land Trust v. Thompson

The supplemental responses filed by Plaintiff are sufficient.  Defendants’ motion to compel is denied.  The court does not find cause to issue any discovery sanctions.

Defendants are to submit a written order consistent with this ruling.  (Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

 

5.  SCV-259672, In re 6590 Joyce Court

It appearing that notice of this hearing was not served by the clerk as required by Civ.C.Sec.2924j(d), the hearing on the any other claims for the surplus funds is continued to February 24, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 16.  The court shall provide notice of said hearing to all claimants identified in the Petition.

Claimant Brian Laws shall submit a written order in accordance with this ruling.

 

© 2017 Superior Court of Sonoma County