Oct 23, 2014

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 3:00 p.m.

Courtroom 16 – Judge 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 the Court by telephone at (707) 521-6547, and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, October 21, 2014.  Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement

1. MCV-192787; Resurgence Financial v. Kim

Appearance required. [Claim of Exemption]

 

 

2. SCV-247676; Jorge v. Dafonseca

Defendant Culinary Institute of America’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is denied.

 

Plaintiff Leopoldo Jorge’s Motion for New Trial is denied.

 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Cost of Proof of Sanctions is denied.

 

If any party requests a hearing, it will be heard on Monday, October 27, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. in Department #16.

 

 

3. SCV-248794; 3820 Cpyress Condo v. MMM Enterprises

The court determines that the proposed settlement was made in good faith within the meaning of CCP §§887, 877.6 and grants the motion.  The Court will enter into the record the [Proposed] Order to the same effect. 

 

 

4. SCV-252819; Beykpour v. Lysenko

Plaintiff’s tardy Motion for Costs in the amount of $615.00 is denied.

 

Defendant’s Motion for Costs is granted in its entirety.  Plaintiff's Motion to Tax Costs is denied.

 

 

5. SCV-253389; Saldara v. Hower

Defendant’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is granted.

 

 

 

6. SCV-253611; Xenos v. Park

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file a Third Amended Complaint is granted.

 

 

7. SCV-254078; Williams v. Stowell

Moving party has shown that a proper discovery request was served on opposing party, the time to respond expired and no response of any kind was served.  Defendant is not required to show a reasonable, good faith attempt at informal resolution because failure to timely respond waives all objections and leaves nothing to be resolved.  Leach v Sup. Ct. (1980) 11 C.A.3d 902, 905-906.          

 

The motion is granted and a monetary sanction imposed on Plaintiff and or his counsel in the amount of $860.00.  

 

 

8. SCV-255119; Barrett v. Banti

Plaintiff’s demurrer to the second cause of action contained in the First Amended Cross-Complaint is sustained.

 

In this case, the purposeful construction of a logging road, the filling in of a creek and the installation of culverts are not ‘sudden’ or instantaneous earth movements with the definition of disaster.

 

On this basis, the demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained.

 

 

9. SCV-255246; Klinkner v. Friends

DROPPED at the request of counsel for moving party.

 

 

10. SCV-256104; Callahan v. Wheeler

Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order Compelling Defendant to Remove Equipment from Plaintiff’s Property and Enjoining Defendant from Otherwise Entering onto Plaintiff’s Property is granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to post a bond in the amount of $5,000.

 

© 2014 Superior Court of Sonoma County