Aug 23, 2016



Wednesday, August 24, 2016, 3:00 p.m.

NOTE:  This calendar will be heard in Courtroom 19 – by The Hon. William C. Harrison for the Hon. Gary Nadler

3055 Cleveland Avenue, 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 Judge Nadler’s Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6730 , and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, August 23, 2016.   Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.


1.  SCV-254714, Mott v. Ryan Associates

            Ryan’s Motions for summary adjudication against Brazelton and USAP, on the issue that Brazelton and USAP each owe Ryan a duty to defend, are Granted.

            Ryan’s undisputed evidence demonstrates that Brazelton and USAP each entered into a written agreement with Ryan, Brazelton to install and USAP to supply, the panels that are at the root of the alleged defects.  The evidence and established facts in both motions show that the agreements both contain an indemnity clause.  Although the wording of the two clauses differs in detail, they both apply to any liability regarding the transaction at issue and Plaintiff’s claims and allegations are squarely within the terms of these indemnity provisions.

            Brazelton, in its opposition, provides evidence, and establishes facts showing, that it is not at fault and instead Ryan may be, but that does not defeat the claim for the duty to defend as it goes not to the nature of the claims but the validity and a dispute over liability.  Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541, 558.  The duty to defend attaches as long as any claim is potentially covered.

            Requests for judicial notice are granted.

            Brazelton’s objections are overruled.

            Defendant Ryan is to prepare an order consistent with this tentative ruling.


2.  SCV-256168, Matteri v. Shear Builders, Inc.

            Plaintiff’s Motion is Granted.

            Plaintiff is to prepare an order consistent with this tentative ruling.


3.  SCV-258039, Su v. Calhoun

            Appearances are required.  The record and evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff served the motion, as well as the underlying discovery and meet-and-confer letter on Ozery at an incorrect address that is not, and at no time ever was, Ozery’s address of record. 



4.  SCV-258976, In Re: Brittney V

The Petition is Denied, without prejudice.  Petitioner has failed to demonstrate proper service via USPS, a requirement which Petitioner must satisfy.  Ins. Code sections section 10139.2, 10139.5 (c)(2).  In addition, Petitioner fails to provide evidence required in Ins. Code section 10139.5, namely,


1) the payee’s name, address, and age;

2) the payee’s marital status and name of spouse if married or separated;

3) names, ages, and residence of minor children or dependents;

4) amounts and sources of payee’s monthly income and financial resources as well as those of a spouse if married;

5) whether payee is obligated under any support orders, plus details thereof; and

Petitioner also fails to provide evidence supporting a finding that the transfer is fair and in Payee’s best interests. This missing information includes demonstrating why Payee needs or wants this transfer, why Payee needs or wants the money now, any other circumstances of Payee that would warrant this transfer, or similar information.  The court also notes that Payee has, in SCV-255915, already transferred payments under the annuity up until November 2026.

            Petitioner is to prepare an order consistent with this tentative ruling.


5.  SCV-259218, Gallagher v. City of Healdsburg

            The Petition is Granted.  The evidence demonstrates clearly and convincingly that the Respondent’s proposed ballot question is misleading, inaccurate, and biased, based, as it is, not on the actual wording and stated effect of the measure but on Respondent’s interpretation of what the measure may, in effect, cause.  Petitioners’ proposed question, by contrast, tracks the actual language and stated effect of the measure.

            Petitioner is to prepare an order consistent with this tentative ruling.

© 2016 Superior Court of Sonoma County