Mar 30, 2015

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

Wednesday, April 1, 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) 521-6725, and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. today, Monday, March 30, 2015 Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. MCV-224368; CACH, LLC v. Edwards
Appearance required.

2. MCV-228183; Unifund CCR, LLC v. Keach
Appearance required.

3. MCV-232616; Discover Bank v. Emmons

First Cause of Action – Open Book Account

Summary Adjudication is granted in favor of Plaintiff on the first cause of action for Open Book Account as there is a book account evidenced by detailed statements kept by Plaintiff that constitutes the principal record of transactions between Plaintiff and Defendant relative to Defendant’s credit card account.

Second Cause of Action – Account Stated

Summary Adjudication is granted in favor of Plaintiff on the second cause of action for Account Stated as Plaintiff issued and submitted monthly billing statements of account to the Defendant, and none of these statements were disputed by the Defendant. Therefore, as a matter of law, these billing statements constitute an agreement by Defendant as to the amount due.

4. MSC-173805; Medina v. Neff
Appearance required.

5. SCV-254797, Collom v. Hometown America Communities
DROPPED as notice of settlement was filed 2/20/15.

6. SCV-255358; Wahr Financial Group, LLC v. Martensen
The Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s request for admissions within the time permitted nor indicated an intention to do so. Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming admitted the genuineness of documents and the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiff’s request for admissions.

7. SCV-255964; Carneros Vineyard Management, LLC v. Kriegsman
The Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is granted.

The Kriegsmans acted in good faith in seeking leave to file a cross-complaint because new facts pertaining to the theory of liability were discovered during recent inspection and review of the CAL FIRE investigation report. Initially, the parties were ignorant as to the cause of the fire because the CAL FIRE investigation report was not issued.

Additionally, the proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same transaction giving rise to Plaintiff’s complaint, namely, the smoke induced damage to the grape crop caused by the fire. The interest of justice warrants the filing of the cross-complaint at this time against Belkorp AG, LLC, West Cal Tractor, Deere & Company and Roes 1 through 100, inclusive, so that liability, if any, may be properly adjudicated against or apportioned to the entities involved in this matter.

8. SCV-256505; Hermone v. Allred
DROPPED from calendar at the request of counsel for moving party.

 

 

 

© 2015 Superior Court of Sonoma County