- Online Services Pay Fines, Transcripts...
- Forms & Filing Forms, Fee Schedule...
- Self-Help Self-Rep, Info, FAQs...
- Divisions Civil, Criminal, Family...
- General Info Local Rules, ADA, Maps...
LAW & MOTION CALENDAR
Wednesday, NOVEMBER 19, 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, November 18, 2014. Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement
1. MCV-231775; American Express v. Dufloth
Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record is granted.
2. MCV-232290; National Collegiate v. Cook
In light of no opposition establishing a valid basis for denial of this motion, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Default Judgment. Defendant shall file an answer within 10 days from the date of this order.
3. MCV-233499; Derner v. Martin
The Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award is granted in the amount of $10,598.33. Attorney fees and Costs are awarded to Gregory G. Spaulding in the amount of $1,320.00. Petitioner shall prepare an order consistent with this ruling.
4. MSC-184326; Bradley v. Real Time Resolutions
5. SCV-252919; Brogan v. Miller
There is no triable issue of material fact as to Plaintiff’s right to payment under the written personal guarantee, and there are no viable defenses. Plaintiff is entitled to summary adjudication of his cause of action for breach of a written guarantee, as a matter of law.
6. SCV-254551; Western Water v. Biostar Systems
The Defendant has not met its burden of showing that the judgment was entered as the result of mistake or fraud. Accordingly, the Motion to Set Aside the Judgment is denied.
7. SCV-254684; GC Micro v. Brown
Trial in this case concluded on 11/4/14. Our Judicial Assistant, Luce Gonzalez advised me that pursuant to a telephone conversation with council for moving Defendants, defense council wanted to leave this motion (filed September 12, 2014, nearly two months before trial commenced) on calendar, but told Ms. Gonzalez that she would be submitting some additional paperwork advising the court on the status of this case.
No further documents have been received. Accordingly, appearances (telephonically or in person) are required.
8. SCV-255543; Frey v. Emericare
All Defendants’ demurrers to the 1st Cause of Action for Elder Abuse are sustained with leave to amend on grounds of uncertainty and failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The cause of action is uncertain in that it alleges two factually inconsistent scenarios regarding the circumstances under which Ms. Frey exited the skilled nursing facility. The cause of action fails to state sufficient facts in that it is not pled with sufficient particularity and there are insufficient allegations of authorization/ratification. There’s a lack of specificity as to the circumstances of Ms. Frey’s exit from the facility; a lack of specificity as to the alleged “scheme” to make profits at the expense of patient care; and a lack of specificity as to any causal connection between the alleged “scheme” and Ms. Frey’s care on the date in question.
Defendant Susan Becker’s demurrer to the 2nd and 3rd Causes of Action is sustained with leave to amend on grounds of uncertainty and failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The allegations against Ms. Becker are vague and ambiguous and not pled with sufficient particularity.
In light of the ruling on the demurrer, Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Elder Abuse prayer for damages and various passages contained within the Elder Abuse cause of action is moot.