Sep 30, 2014



Wednesday, September 24, 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, September 23, 2014.  Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement

1. MCV-230608; FIA Card v. Rathjen

This is a collections action arising from the Defendant’s alleged default on a credit card.


On May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff served Defendant Requests for Admission.  The Defendant failed to respond.  In response, the Plaintiff filed this motion, seeking to have the requests for admissions deemed admitted.  (CCP § 2033.280.)  No opposition to the motion has been filed.


Plaintiff's motion is granted.  The Plaintiff is to draft an order consistent with this ruling.



2. MCV-232084; Diaz v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC

Green Tree’s demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.  Green Tree shall draft an order consistent with this ruling.



3. SCV-249329; Senzell v. Chase Home Finance

This is just a Notice of Errata.  No tentative ruling required. 



4. SCV-254248; RSB Vineyards v. Orsi

Summary Judgment is granted.  Plaintiff has not established a triable issue of material fact as to any of its five causes of action.  Plaintiff has no evidence of actual knowledge of any allegedly substandard conditions to the Property.


Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections are denied in toto.


Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted. 


Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Opposition Evidence is sustained in toto.


Defendant’s Objections to Opposition Brief and Motion to Strike is sustained in toto.


Defendant’s Objections to the Declaration of Larry Miyano is sustained and the declaration is stricken.


5. SCV-254761; Lopez v. Bradley

This is on calendar for the Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (the Discovery).  On May 9, 2014, the Plaintiff served the Discovery on Defendant Scott Bradley.  On June 13, 2014, the Defendant served responses to the Discovery.  On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a letter to the Defendant seeking to meet and confer regarding the responses to SROGS Nos. 1, 3, 8, and 9.  The Plaintiff received no response and this motion followed.


If a party who propounded Interrogatories, Requests for Production and/or Requests for Admissions determines that responses received were insufficient, improper, incomplete, or that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general, the remedy is a motion to compel further response, brought within 45 days of receipt of the responses in issue, accompanied by a separate statement and a declaration of attempt at informal resolution.  (CCP §§ 2030.300, 2031.310, CCP § 2033.290.)


CRC 3.1345 (Separate Statement requirement) requires, among other things, that the party seeking further response set forth the factual and legal reasons for compelling it.  The initial burden of proof is upon the proponent to establish “good cause” for the information sought. The responding party must then justify any objection or failure fully to answer.  (Coy v Sup. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)


If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories.  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)


Here, the Plaintiff propounded the SROGs, and the Defendant failed to fully respond to SROGs Nos. 1,3,8, and 9.  The Defendant has failed to oppose the instant motion. Accordingly, the motion should is granted.  The Plaintiff is not seeking sanctions.



6. SCV-255256; Mazzaferro v. Mazzaferri

This is on calendar for the Defendant’s demurrer.  On September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.  Accordingly, the demurrer is moot.  (CCP § 472; and Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 884.)  In a related case, SCV-255478, the Court has sustained the demurrer with one last chance to amend.


© 2014 Superior Court of Sonoma County