Jun 23, 2017

TENTATIVE RULINGS                                         

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR                             

Wednesday, June 21, 2017, 3:00 p.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, Tuesday, June 20, 2017.  Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.


1.     MCV 190851 Columbia v. Jordan:

Appearances are required.


2.     SCV 256033 Funes v. Hughes:

Motion Denied.  There is no good cause for the additional discovery time or requested discovery.  Defendants claim that they need the additional discovery in order to explore the newly discovered results of the wrist surgery and Plaintiff’s belief that his aneurysm resulted from the injuries sustained in the accident.  However, Plaintiffs show that the results of the surgery were as anticipated and Defendants were aware of the surgery prognosis previously, the information having been available to Defendants in 2015.  Plaintiffs also have expressly stated that they are not claiming the aneurysm as part of their damages. 

Parties may conduct discovery up through 30 days, and bring discovery motions up through 15 days, “before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” CCP section 2024.020(a), emphasis added. 

Unless the court grants leave to conduct discovery or bring motions after the cut-off under CCP section 2024.050 or the parties so agree under section 2024.060, the continuance of a trial date does not continue the discovery cut-off or otherwise re-open discovery.  CCP sections 2024.020(b), 2024.050, 2024.060.

Should a party bring a motion to re-open discovery, it must show a reasonable, good-faith effort to resolve the matter informally and the court must consider 4 factors.  CCP section 2024.050.  The court must consider: 1) the necessity and reasons for the additional discovery; 2) the diligence and reasons why discovery was not earlier completed; 3) whether permitting additional discovery would likely delay trial, interfere with the trial calendar, or prejudice any party; and 4) the length of time that elapsed between any previous trial date and the current trial date.  CCP section 2024.050(b). 

The bases for the motion, Plaintiff’s belief that an aneurysm resulted from the accident injuries and the new information on the results of a wrist surgery, are unpersuasive.  As Plaintiffs contend, Defendants already apparently knew the prospects for the wrist surgery were limited and the results were apparently consistent with this prognosis.  Therefore, there is nothing new which Ds need to explore.  Plaintiff has stipulated the aneurysm is not part of the damages he is seeking.  Defendants therefore have no need for any information related to that.

Plaintiff is to prepare a proposed order consistent with this tentative ruling and deliver it to Department 17 chambers within ten (10) days.


3.     SCV 258499 Moga v. KDS:

Appearances are required.  There is no proof of service.


4.     SCV 258944 Crinella v. Crinella:

The Motion is dropped from calendar as moot, as the matter has settled.


5.     SCV 260175 Pineda v. Simpkins:

The Motion is Granted. Plaintiff and/or her attorney shall pay defense counsel Sanctions in the amount of $390, for the expenses thus far incurred, within thirty (30) days of the signed order on this ruling.  Defense counsel is to prepare a proposed order consistent with this tentative ruling and deliver it to Department 17 chambers within ten (10) days of this tentative ruling.  Plaintiff is to provide discovery within twenty (20) days of service of the order.


6.     SCV 260603 In Re: Petition of Blu Homes, Inc.:

The hearing in this matter is continued to the Law and Motion Calendar on August 2, 2017 at 3:00pm in Department 17 because the proof of service does not show service as required under CCP section 2035.040, and specifically it fails to show service as required for service of summons.  The court also notes that Petitioner appears to indicate that the named adverse parties reside in San Francisco.  This would require the action to be brought in San Francisco. (CCP section 2035.030(a)). If the Petition is to be filed in San Francisco, the moving party is directed to contact this court to remove the August 2, 2017 hearing from calendar.

© 2017 Superior Court of Sonoma County