Mar 03, 2015

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

Wednesday, FEBRUARY 25, 2015, 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,  February 24, 2015 Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. MCV-231745; Resurgence v. Rossi

Appearance required (Claim of Exemption).

 

 

2. MCV-233434; Collectronics v.  Manny’s

Motion for Receiver is granted.

 

 

3. MCV-233449; Hanna v. SRMH

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted.  The seemingly “ordinary” negligence of a janitor is still covered by MICRA hospital setting.

 

Plaintiff’s request that the Court take Judicial Notice of Title 22 of California Codes and Regulations, Division 5, sections 70827 and 70887 is granted.

 

 

4. MSC-184833; Guckenheimer v. Sleep Train

Appearance required.

 

 

5. MSC-184847; Zamora v. Chen

Appearance required.

 

 

6. SCV-248794; 3820 Cypress Condo Assoc v. MMM Enterprises

Defendant W. Reyneveld Construction Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgement is denied.  The “completed and accepted” doctrine, upon which Defendant moving party relies, includes the requirement that “… an average person during the course of a reasonable inspection would have discovered the defect.”  CACI #4552.  In the content of this case, that would constitute a triable issue of fact not yet determined by the facts of this case.

 

 

7. SCV-251845; Wolf v. Thomas

Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 8, 9, and 35 is denied on the grounds that the requests are overbroad, not narrowly tailored to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and constitute an unreasonable invasion of Cross-Defendant Johnella Thomas’ right to privacy.

 

Requests for Production of Documents

 

Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 22 and 23 is denied on the grounds that the requests are overbroad, not narrowly tailored to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and constitute an unreasonable invasion of Cross-Defendant Johnella Thomas’ right to privacy.

 

Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, and 35 are granted.

 

 

8. SCV-252512; Pedrazzini v. Raaka

Lennon Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is granted.  The Settlement was made in good faith pursuant to CCP §877.6, thereby extinguishing all causes of action for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

 

Finally, there is no evidence of fraud or collusion present with this settlement.  This settlement was reached through negotiations.

 

Defendant Mark Roderick Green dba Mark Green Masonry’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is granted.  The Settlement was made in good faith pursuant to CCP §877.6, thereby extinguishing all causes of action for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

 

Finally, there is no evidence of fraud or collusion present with this settlement.  This settlement was reached through negotiations.

 

Defendant John Ray & Sons Construction, Inc.’s objections to the Declaration of Paul V. Samoni are overruled.

 

 

9. SCV-253982; Marzo v. Kerkhof

The Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the first amended complaint and add a fourth cause of action under Business & Professions Code section 7160 is granted.

 

A new legal theory is introduced by this proposed amendment but it does relate to the same general set of facts.  The amendment does not appear to prejudice Defendant because it does not require further discovery on the issue of remedies.  The legal issue the amendment rests upon is the same issue that was raised by Plaintiff in the original complaint.  Plaintiff still argues, as he did in the original complaint, that Defendant was operating as an unlicensed contractor contrary to law and seeks here only to clarify the remedies sought.  The amendment relates to the same general facts as the complaint, and allowing the amendment does not prejudice Defendant.

 

© 2015 Superior Court of Sonoma County