Feb 26, 2017

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

Friday, February 24, 2017, 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom 17 – Hon. Peter Ottenweller

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 Judge Ottenweller’s Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6725, and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. today, Thursday, February 23, 2017.  Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.

 

 


1.  SCV-250405, McGuire v. State of California

Due to Plaintiff’s timely disqualification of Judge Ottenweller, the motions to quash have been continued to Wed., March 8, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 18 before the Hon. René A. Chouteau.

 

 

2.  SCV-255401, Harter v. City of Santa Rosa

Defendant City of Santa Rosa’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Summary Adjudication are denied.

 

Plaintiffs raise triable material issues of fact in that the City’s engineers did not consider sight distances to and from Boston Court and Hoen Avenue as required by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).  There are triable issues of material facts that the intersection in question was dangerous because of its limited visibility to view oncoming traffic.  See City’s Facts 21, 23, 28 and 29.  See Plaintiffs’ Facts 11-16 and 22-26. 

According to these disputed material facts, City relied on AASHTO standards which standards were not met at this intersection thereby creating a dangerous condition which contributed to this accident.  Plaintiffs raise triable material disputed issues as to what the City knew or should have known, whether the intersection is dangerous and whether the City breached the standard of care. 

 

City claims that it is immune from liability for discretionary design under Government Code section 830.6.  City fails to demonstrate this immunity applies as a matter of law.  A disputed material fact exists as to whether the City’s engineers considered sight lines as provided by AASHTO and whether the intersection complied with AASHTO.

 

With respect to signs specifically, City relies on two statutes.  Government Code section 830.4 states that there is no dangerous condition merely due to failure to provide a traffic sign while section 830.8 states that no public entity or employee shall be liable merely for failing to provide a traffic warning or signal but they may be liable for failing to do so if the failure “proximately caused” an injury or death and the warning or signal “was necessary to warn of a dangerous condition which endangered the safe movement of traffic and which would not be reasonably apparent to, and would not have been anticipated by, a person exercising due care.”  Here, Plaintiffs allege that the intersection was dangerous due to its configuration and the speed limit, thereby making a sign necessary, and that the lack of proper signage and speed limit, plus the other factors, all contributed to the accident.  No evidence contradicts this as a matter of law and Plaintiffs’ evidence directly supports these allegations.  City provides no evidence that a reasonable person should have noticed and anticipated the dangerous condition and acted accordingly.

 

 

3.  SCV-257534, Fordyce v. Russian River Getaways, Inc.

DROPPED from calendar at the request of counsel for moving party.

 

 

4.  SCV-259702, Guen v. Pereira

Defendants’ Motion for Mandatory Relief to Vacate and Set Aside Default is granted.  The court granted Defendants’ request to extend their response to complaint to January 23, 2017.  The default was erroneously entered by the court on January 5, 2017.  Therefore, the default is void.

 

Defendants’ response shall be filed and served no later than March 15, 2017.

 

 

5.  SCV-259842, Doe v. Martinez

Defendant Comcast Corporation’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike are continued to Wed., April 5, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. at the request of counsel for moving party.

 

Defendant Comcast Corporation shall give written notice of the new date and time of the hearing on its Demurrer and Motion to Strike and shall file proof of service of said notice with the court no later than March 3, 2017.

 

 

6.  SCV-259910, Fields v. Bayview Loan Servicing LLC

The court has been advised that Defendants Bayview Loan Servicing and Bank of New York Mellon filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court on Feb. 23, 2017.  The motion is continued to Wed., March 15, 2017, at 3:00 p.m., to further confirm the removal to Federal Court.

 

 

 

© 2017 Superior Court of Sonoma County