Jan 27, 2015

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

Wednesday, JANUARY 21, 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, Tuesday,  January 20, 2015 Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement

1. MCV-230608; FIA Card Services v. Rathjen
The court will take judicial notice of the Requests for Admissions. The admissions negate the express allegations in Defendant’s answer. Therefore, the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the Defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. Accordingly, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted.

2. MCV-230774; Collectronics, Inc. v. McKerjee
The Motion is granted. The Court hereby appoints Michael Brewer as the receiver in this action to carry out the enforcement of the judgment entered in this case against Sunhil Chandra McKerjee, aka Sunhil McKerjee, Individually dba Go Towne Market.

3. MSC-184624; Van Tamelen v. Koman
Appearances are required.

4. SCV-253894; Couey v. Carreno
DROPPED from calendar with the agreement of all parties.

5. SCV-254797; Collom v. Hometown America Communities
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted in full. The Court orders that responses be served by Defendants, without objections (which have been waived), by January 30, 2015. Sanctions in the requested amount of $1,185 are awarded to Plaintiff jointly and severally as against all Defendants and their counsel.

6. SCV-254929; Sewell v. Nelson
The settlement of this matter avoids significant litigation risk and makes the Settlement Claim Amounts available to 272 Class Members. Plaintiffs aver that the proposed attorneys' fee award is reasonable and deserved in light of Class Counsel's efforts and the results obtained.

The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, grants preliminary approval of the Class, approves the proposed Notice and notice plan, and sets a hearing on final approval for Wednesday, May 27, 2015, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 16.

7. SCV-254976; Singler-Ernester v. Perryman
Appearances are required.

8. SCV-255643; Williams v. Brasted
Defendant’s motion to strike all portions of Plaintiff’s complaint pertaining to punitive and exemplary damages is denied.

Plaintiff may seek punitive damages for “oppression, fraud or malice.” (Civ. Code § 3294(a).) “Malice” means conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct that is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).)

The complaint alleges sufficient facts pursuant to which one may infer that, at the time of the accident, Defendant was driving at an excessive rate of speed, that she was driving in an aggressive and risky manner, and that she was impaired by “extreme exhaustion.” These facts, if proved, would support finding that defendant’s conduct was despicable and carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.

Plaintiff is to submit a written order consistent with this ruling.

9. SCV-255767; Sutidze v. Resort at Indian Springs, LLC
The Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action is sustained with leave to amend on the grounds that each cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to establish causes of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Fraud.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress requires outrageous conduct, not merely the ordinary disputes and annoyances of life. Fraud requires that Plaintiffs – not the City of Calistoga in this instance – rely on any misrepresentation.

The Motion to Strike portions of the Amended Complaint is granted in toto.
 

 

 

 

© 2015 Superior Court of Sonoma County