Nov 20, 2017

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2017, 9:00 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, November 16, 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-240178, Collectronics Inc. v. Sanchez:

 

Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Receiver to sell the Defendants’ liquor license is granted.  Appearances required to discuss the amount of the undertaking to be required.

 

2.      SCV257053, Hoaglin v. Hansel Inc.:

The motions for summary judgment/adjudication filed by Defendants Hansel Inc., et al and by Defendant Ford Motor Credit are continued to the law and motion calendar for December 15, 2017, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 16.   It appears that the court’s case management system was not updated to reflect that the summary judgment motion brought by Defendant Ford Motor Credit had been moved to November 17, 2017.  Also, Plaintiff’s “Bound Volume of Evidence,” as received by the court, contained only a list of exhibits but not the actual evidence.  Plaintiff is ordered to resubmit his complete “Bound Volume of Evidence” within five court days from November 17, 2017.

 

3.      SCV258010, Sonoma Land Trust v. Thompson:

 

The motion by Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker LLP to withdraw as attorneys for the Thompson Defendants was continued for further hearing because the attorneys had not disclosed the basis for their request to withdraw.  On November 1, 2017 the attorneys submitted a supplemental declaration stating that they are seeking to withdraw because the Thompsons have “breach[ed] an agreement or obligation to [the firm] as to expenses or fees.”  The opposition filed by Plaintiff shows that Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker LLP is continuing to represent the Thompsons in a federal proceeding in which they are attempting to obtain an insurance defense.  That does not inherently contradict the new information provided to the court by Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker LLP in support of their motion to withdraw.  Further, Plaintiff has not demonstrated how, even if the motion to was being brought for some purpose other than the one disclosed to the court, Plaintiff would be prejudiced by it.  The trial was continued for other reasons, as a consequence of the October wildfires, and the parties asked for a January Case Management Conference to select a new trial date.  Plaintiff, in particular, asked for time to retain a new expert on restoration of property following a fire and indicated that expert discovery might need to be reopened.  In the absence of a showing of prejudice to Plaintiff, based on the additional information provided by Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker LLP, the motion is granted.

 

4.      SCV-259669, Bush v. Mt. Taylor Mobile Home Park:

 

The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.  Plaintiff contends that facts exist which would support an opposition to this motion, but they cannot be presented at this time. (See CCP § 437c(h).)  In addition, Plaintiff indicates that the parties have reached an agreement for the filing of a First Amended Complaint, which will include a new cause of action. This agreement, and forthcoming amended complaint will make the current summary judgment moot because it would not adjudicate the entire action.

 

5.      SCV-260032, Stameroff v. Bembey:

 

A.  Compel Form Interrogatories:  Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s unopposed motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is continued to January 12, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 16 to allow Defendant and Cross-Complainant to cure the following procedural deficiencies:

a.       No proof of service has been filed showing that the motion was served on the Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant.  

b.      The motion does not include a separate statement. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a) requires that the motion be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892 [holding that a Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery, as plaintiffs failed to comply with rule governing format of discovery motions, which required that any motion involving content of discovery request or responses to such request be accompanied by a separate statement].)

Defendant and Cross-Complainant must file the separate statement and must also serve (or re-serve) the entire motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories with the separate statement, not later Friday, December 8, 2017.

 

B.  Compel Special Interrogatories:  Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s unopposed motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is continued to January 12, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 16 to allow Defendant and Cross-Complainant to cure the following procedural deficiency:  The motion does not include a separate statement. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a) requires that the motion be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at 892 [holding that a Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery, as plaintiffs failed to comply with rule governing format of discovery motions, which required that any motion involving content of discovery request or responses to such request be accompanied by a separate statement].)

Defendant and Cross-Complainant must file the separate statement and must also serve (or re-serve) the entire motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories with the separate statement, not later Friday, December 8, 2017.

 

6.      SCV-260090,  Dudney v. Carls:

 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint is granted. Defendants’ objections to the filing of the proposed Second Amended Complaint are premature.  The court was not persuaded by the Defendants’ argument that the SAC is a “sham” such that the request for leave to amend should be denied.  If the amended complaint is fatally defective, it can be challenged by an appropriate motion.  However, leave to amend should not be denied because there is a possibility that it is susceptible to a demurrer, or motion to strike. (See e.g. Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Marker, U.S.A.) (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

 

7. SCV-260211, Lorenz v. Shiomoto:

 

            This matter to be continued. Notice to be mailed.

 

8.  SCV-260262, Chapman v. Steele:

 

Plaintiff Stanley Chapman’s motion to consolidate this case (his action for personal injuries) with SCV-261091 (a related action for loss of consortium filed by his wife), and designate this case, SCV-260262, as the lead case is incomplete in that no proof of timely service of the motion has been filed.  Plaintiffs state in their moving papers that the Defendants have agreed that the matters should be consolidated.  A proof of service is still required.  These cases present common issues of both fact and law, and judicial economy would be fostered by combining these cases for purposes of discovery, and trial.  If proof of service of the motion is filed at or before the time of the hearing, the motion will be granted and SCV-260262 will be the lead case.  All subsequent filings shall bear the lead case number.

 

9.  SCV-260384, Vineburg Wine and Self Storage, LLC v. Fidelity National Title Company:

 

This is on calendar for a continued hearing on the Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents. The court continued the hearing to give the parties an opportunity to meet and confer regarding the Defendant’s proposed compromise.  The court has not been notified as to whether the parties have resolved this discovery dispute. The parties are ordered to advise the court of the status of their meet and confer efforts by 4 p.m. today.   If the parties have not resolved the dispute, they are ordered to appear and the court will issue its Tentative Ruling on the substance of the motion in advance of the hearing.

 

 

10.  SCV-261215, In re: M. Notestine:

 

The petition to transfer structured settlement payments is denied.  Neither the Petition, nor the Motion, includes a declaration from the proposed transferee, Ms. Notestine, providing the statutorily required information.

 

© 2017 Superior Court of Sonoma County