Feb 26, 2017

 

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2017, 10:00 a.m. - Dept. 16

*to be heard in Dept. 23* – Hon. J. Michael Byrne for the Hon. Nancy Case Shaffer

3055 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, Thursday, February 23, 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.     MCV 239266, American Contractors v Hauck:

 

Defendants Thomas Miller and Valerie Hauck (now Howard)’s unopposed motion to set aside the default judgment is granted.

 

Defendants shall have 10 days to file the proposed answer.

 

 

2.     SCV 255419, Fretz v Schaefer:

 

This is on calendar for Judgement Debtor Schaefer’s motion to tax costs and motion to set aside default judgment. The Judgement Creditor has filed a motion for attorney fees and a motion to fix costs of enforcement of the judgment.

Schaefer’s motion to set aside the default is granted. She has provided sufficient evidence that she was not personally served, and therefore the judgment as to her must be vacated. Schaefer shall have ten days from this order to file and serve her proposed answer to the Complaint. Schaefer’s motion to tax is moot in light of the default being set aside.

The Judgment Creditor’s motion to fix costs of enforcement is denied in part and granted in part. It is denied as to Schaefer in light of the default being set aside; it is granted as to the other Defendants in the amount of $48,000.

 

 

3.     SCV 256859, Robinson v Krause:

 

No bad faith has been shown and issues raised in Plaintiff’s opposition may be raised in litigation. Motion is timely. CCP §428.50(c).

Defendant Meryl Krause’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is granted.

 

The Defendant shall serve and file the proposed cross-complaint within 10 days of this order. The Defendant shall draft an order consistent with this ruling.

 

 

4.     SCV 258084, International Buddhist v Chen:

 

This case is on calendar for plaintiff International Buddhist Association’s (“Plaintiff”) second Motion to Amend the Judgment to correct a clerical error—the first was denied for lack of service.  Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) and on the grounds that the Court’s June 21, 2016 Judgment After Court Trial, includes two clerical errors that should be corrected.  Plaintiff’s motion is not opposed, and appears to have been properly served.

 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for the motion and that the requested corrections are necessary to conform the Judgment to the rulings of the Court. Accordingly, the motion is granted, and the judgment amended nunc pro tunc.

 

Plaintiff shall draft an order consistent with this ruling.

 

 

5.     SCV 259672, In Re: 6590 Joyce Court:

 

This matter is continued to the short cause calendar in Dept. 19 on Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:30 a.m.

 

 

6.     SCV 259791, Park v Law Offices of Tracey Buck-Walsh:

 

The Plaintiff’s motion is denied in part and granted in part. The allegations with respect to the Defendants’ representation in front of the Bureau and Commission are stricken on the grounds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish a probability of success on the merits, i.e. that the Defendants’ representation of the Lunardis’ in front of those agencies is adverse to the Plaintiff or that the Defendants’ representation of the Lunardis in front of the Commission and Bureau is substantially related to their past representation of Park. But, the motion is denied as to the allegations with respect to the arbitration, as conduct in front of the arbitrator, pursuant to a private arbitration agreement is not within the scope of the anti-SLAPP protections.

 

Accordingly, the allegations involving Defendants’ advocacy in front of the Commission and Bureau, ¶9 (3: 7-14), ¶12 (4: 7-16), ¶ 45(12: 21-24), ¶ 50 (13:22-14:4), ¶ 51 (14: 5- 8), ¶ 52 (14:9-12), ¶ 53 (14:13-28), ¶ 56(1528-14), ¶57 (15:15-24) , ¶ 10 (3:16-23), ¶ 13 (4:17-24), ¶ 47 (13: 5-9), ¶59 (in so far as it relates to the Bureau and Commission), ¶ 63 (b, c, d), ¶ 71 (in so far as it relates to the Bureau and Commission),¶ 72 (in so far as it relates to the Bureau and Commission), ¶ 74 (in so far as it relates to the Bureau and Commission) are stricken from the Complaint.

 

© 2017 Superior Court of Sonoma County