Mar 06, 2015



Wednesday, MARCH 4, 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,  March 3, 2015 Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.







1. MCV-232459; Collectronics v. Peifer

The Motion to Compel is granted.  Sanctions in the amount of $690 are awarded to Judgment Creditor.



2. SCV-253157; Moore v. Hyde

Appearance required.



3. SCV-253611; Xenos v. Park

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration of Plaintiff’s Individual Claims is granted.  Plaintiff agreed to submit his individual claims arising between him and his employer 101 Casino to arbitration, but neither Plaintiff nor The 101 Casino agreed to arbitrate class or representative claims.  Accordingly, the Court will enforce the Arbitration Agreement based on the express agreement by compelling arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual claims and staying the PAGA claims pending resolution of the arbitration.


Granting Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration does not result in a loss of Plaintiff’s right to pursue PAGA claims.  For Plaintiff to pursue a PAGA claim, Plaintiff must prove that he is an “aggrieved employee.”  [Labor Code §2699(a), (c).]  If Plaintiff succeeds in his individual Labor Code claims in arbitration, he is free to pursue any PAGA claims in court by either re-filling any previously dismissed PAGA claim, or by having the court release the stay of his PAGA claim if it was previously stayed.  If Plaintiff does not succeed in arbitrating his individual Labor Code claims, he will not have wasted judicial resources managing a representative action where the individual pursuing civil penalties on behalf of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) is found to have no standing to do so. Nothing will prevent Plaintiff from pursuing PAGA claims except for his inability to establish that he, as an individual, is an “aggrieved employee.”

4. SCV-253886; Crinella v. Summit State Bank

Appearance required.



5. SCV-254647; Foley v. Jane Foley Investments

Defendant and Cross-Complainants Jane Foley, et al’s Motion for an Order to File a First Amended Cross Complaint, adding a new party and new causes of action is granted.


The issue of Cross-Complainants’ motion as being noncompliant with Rules of Court Rule 3.1324 is of little consequence.



6. SCV-255478; Mazzaferri v. Mazzaferri

Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside the Default to Second Amended Complaint is granted.


Defendants’ Demurrer to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action contained in the Second Amended Complaint is sustained without leave to amend.



7. SCV-256292; Hulbert v. Episcopal

Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted.


© 2015 Superior Court of Sonoma County