Jul 20, 2017

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

FRIDAY, JULY 21, 2017, 11:00 A.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., Thursday, July 20th, 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.

 

 

 

 

 

PLEASE NOTE:  The court no longer provides court reporters for motion hearings.  If they wish, the parties may confer and arrange for one of the parties to bring a privately retained certified shorthand reporter to serve in the matter.

1.   SCV-254062, Jennings Avenue Associates v. Segue Construction

           

The unopposed application of Cross-Defendant/Defendant/Defendant-in-Intervention Pacific West Lath & Plaster, Inc. to determine good faith settlement pursuant to CCP § 877.6 is granted.   As the motion for good faith settlement is not contested, the court does not analyze the factors set forth in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 488.  (See City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261.)

 

 

2.  SCV 257329, Crump v. Soldis

 

This matter is continued to the Law & Motion calendar of Friday, August 18, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. Tentative ruling to issue on August 17th after 2:00 p.m. Per the Discovery Facilitator, this date to be dropped if the matter is resolved by July 21st.

 

 

3SCV-258522, Hughes v. Kramer

 

The unopposed motion of Defendants Kramer and Sommers to compel discovery responses to form and special interrogatories and request for production of documents is granted. Defendants’ request for sanctions is denied.

On January 13, 2017, the Defendants served Special and Form Interrogatories and Requests for the Production of Documents on the Plaintiff. (Dec. Pabros ¶¶ 3-5.) Defendants denied Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to serve responses.  On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff served responses to the discovery which consisted of unverified responses and numerous objections, including objections to the form interrogatories. (See Exht. E to the Pabros Dec.) Providing unverified responses to discovery is legally the same as failing to provide responses. (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; Zorro Investment Company v. Great Pacific Securities Corporation (1977)69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914.)

 

Although Defendants’ motion to compel is granted, the court declines to award any discovery sanctions. Defendants did not attempt any meet and confer efforts after the unverified responses were received, prior to the filing of this motion.

 

Plaintiff shall serve verified responses to Defendants’ 1) Form and Special Interrogatories and 2) Requests for Production, both without objection, within twenty days from the date of service of the written order on this motion.  

 

Defendants are to submit an order consistent with this ruling.

 

 

 

4.   SCV-259791, Park v. Buck-Walsh

 

Defendants’ motion to seal is granted.  In opposing Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, defendant inadvertently included a Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) which was referred to in an accompanying Declaration. (See Dec. Harrington in Opposition to the OSC re Preliminary Injunction.) Defendant contends that the details of the SPA are irrelevant to the current action, and that it satisfies the criteria enumerated in California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550, et seq.

The material sought to be sealed can be fairly characterized as confidential financial and business strategy information, which establishes an “overriding interest” in preserving its confidentiality.  (See Gordon v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 55 Cal.App4th 1546, 1557-1558.)

 

Accordingly, the motion is granted in its entirety.

 

 

5.  SCV 260489, Lange v. Shiomoto

 

This matter is continued, per agreement, to the Law & Motion calendar of Friday, August 25th at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 16. A tentative ruling to issue August 24th after 2:00 p.m.

 

© 2017 Superior Court of Sonoma County