May 29, 2020
TENTATIVE RULINGS                                            
LAW & MOTION CALENDAR                      
Friday, May 29, 2020, 2:30 p.m.
Courtroom 17 – Hon. Arthur A. Wick
3035 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa
 
In accordance with the Addendum to First Amended Omnibus Order of the Presiding Judge issued May 27, 2020, only those persons with court hearings in criminal actions shall enter a Sonoma County Superior Court facility. Until further notice, all matters set for hearing in this courtroom shall be heard remotely through Zoom. No party or representative of a party may appear personally in Courtroom 17. CourtCall is not permitted for this calendar.
 
If the tentative ruling is accepted, no appearance is necessary via Zoom unless otherwise indicated.
 
TO JOIN ZOOM ONLINE:
 
D17 – Law & Motion 3 pm Wednesday
 
TO JOIN ZOOM BY PHONE:  
By Phone (same meeting ID and password as listed for each calendar):
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
 
 
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 Wick’s Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6725, and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 20th. Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.
 
 
 
PLEASE NOTE:  The Court WILL provide a Court Reporter for this calendar.  If there are any concerns, please contact the Court at the number provided above.
 
 
1.         SCV-254820, Hogan v. Cenlar FSB:
 
This matter is on calendar for the motion of Plaintiff Victoria Hogan for attorney fees. On the court’s own motion, the matter is continued to July 22, 2020, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 17.
 
 
 
2.         SCV-261498, Perez, JR v. Santa Rosa Stainless Steel Fabrications, Inc:
 
This matter is on calendar for the final approval of class action settlement. On the court’s own motion, the matter is continued to July 22, 2020, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 17.
 
 
 
3.         SCV-263599, Travis v. Potapshyn-Brookins Trust:
 
This matter is on calendar for the motion of Defendant Potapshyn-Brookins Trust to compel Plaintiff Shaiden Travis to provide further responses to defendant’s discovery requests and request for monetary sanctions. Counsel for plaintiff Shaiden Travis has since served responses to the discovery requests. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED and sanctions are awarded in the amount of $500.
 
Defendant is directed to submit an order consistent with this ruling and in compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.
 
 
 
4.         SCV-264723, Addington v. Ridgeway Distribution, LLC:
 
Defendant Humboldt Growers Network Inc., Tobias Dodge, and Steve Dodge (“Defendants”) move for an order to stay arbitration pursuant to CCP section 1281.2. The motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s requests for judicial notice are granted.
 
CCP section 1281.2 provides: “On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that:…(c) A party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.”
 
“If the court determines that a party to the arbitration is also a party to litigation in a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party as set forth under subdivision (c), the court…(4) may stay arbitration pending the outcome of the court action or special proceeding.” CCP section 1281.2(d).
 
Here, Defendants are parties to an action brought by Piner Partners and David Addington (“Piner”). Defendant Ridgeway Distribution (“Ridgeway”) and Tobias Dodge have filed cross-complaints. These actions arise out a series of leases and subleases at property located at 947 Piner Place. Humboldt was originally a subleasor to Plaintiff Piner. After Defendant Ridgeway served Plaintiff Piner with a Notice of Termination of the lease, Humboldt alleges that it contacted Defendant Ridgeway and came to an agreement to pay rent to Ridgeway in exchange for continued possession of the property. There are no alleged arbitration agreements between Ridgeway, Piner, and the other parties.
 
An arbitrator would have to determine some the relative rights of the parties in this lawsuit in order to determine Piner’s ability to evict Humboldt. Accordingly, the court finds that CCP section 1281.2(c) applies to this case and the court hereby stays the arbitration proceeding pending against defendant Humboldt.
 
Defendant Humboldt is directed to provide the court with an order consistent with this tentative ruling and in compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.
 
 
 
5.         SCV-265155, Tomrose v. City of Petaluma:
 
Petitioners/plaintiffs are seeking a temporary restraining order and the setting of an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction enjoining respondents/defendants and the real parties in interest from engaging in a variety of tasks involving the construction of certain improvements and development of 111 Olive Street, Petaluma, California.
 
Respondents/defendants oppose the requests identified.
 
Many of the requests by petitioners/plaintiffs appear to be appropriate; however, the scope of the requested temporary restraining order requested appears to the court to be overly broad.
 
As such, the court will entertain argument on the following topics:
 
1.      The scope of the proposed temporary restraining order;
2.      The hearing date for the proposed OSC for a preliminary injunction (likely July 15, 2020); and
3.      The briefing schedule for the subject hearing.
 
No personal appearances in the courtroom will be permitted; the hearing in this matter shall be by way of Zoom. Please note that Local Rules of Court, rule 5.5B shall apply to this hearing.
 
 
 
6.         SCV-265833, Stevens v. California TD Specialists, Inc.:
 
This matter is set for a hearing on the OSC RE Preliminary Injunction that was filed in this case on January 14, 2020. Proofs of service show that a Notice of Motion and Motion for Continuing Injunction and Order Restraining the Trustee Sale of 5386 Blue Ridge Trail, a memorandum, a request for judicial notice, and an order were served upon the defendants in mid-March. Thereafter, this hearing was rescheduled to May 29, 2020. The file only shows that Notice of the Rescheduled Hearing was served on plaintiffs and three out of six defendants. There is no additional proof of service showing that the remaining three defendants were served with notice of the rescheduled hearing date. Additionally, as of May 25, 2020, the actual motion documents in support of a preliminary injunction (aka continuing injunction and order restraining the trustee sale) have not been filed with the court.
 
Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED to July 22, 2020, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 17. Plaintiffs shall immediately file the motion documents with the court and give notice of the July 22 motion to all defendants.
 
 
 
 
 
TO JOIN ZOOM ONLINE:
 

D17 – Law & Motion 3 pm Wednesday
Meeting ID:  852-7628-3856

Password:  952929

 
TO JOIN ZOOM BY PHONE:  
By Phone (same meeting ID and password as listed for each calendar):
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
 
 

© 2020 Superior Court of Sonoma County