- Home
- Online Services Pay Fines, Transcripts...
- Forms & Filing Forms, Fee Schedule...
- Self-Help Self-Rep, Info, FAQs...
- Divisions Civil, Criminal, Family...
- General Info Local Rules, ADA, Maps...
Home » Online Services » Tentative Rulings » Civil Dept 18 - Law & Motion Calendar
Related Links
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS
Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.
CIVIL COURTROOM #18
3055 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403
In accordance with the amended California Rules of Court, rule 3.670, CourtCall is authorized for all Law and Motion appearances, except for motions related to small claims cases and for any claims of exemption (parties in these cases must appear in court). CourtCall is available by calling the service directly at (888) 882-6878.
The following tentative rulings will become official rulings of the Court, unless a party desires to be heard. If you want to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, it will be necessary for you to contact the Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707)521-6730 by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 14, 2012.
Any party who requests an appearance must notify all other parties of their intent to appear. Small claims cases and claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.
1) Santa Rosa Golf & Country Club v. Investors Trust Mortgage and Investment Company, Inc., and John Brown (MCV-220273):
The plaintiff Santa Rosa Golf & Country Club is now seeking a default judgment against the defendant Investors Trust Mortgage and Investments Company, Inc. Code of Civil Procedure 585.
This defendant is in default. Plaintiff’s factual declarations support a default judgment on the two causes of action for breach of contract and for common counts. The proven principal damages amount to $21,409.35, augmented by $4,281.87 in pre-judgment interest.
Further, plaintiff incurred allowable costs of $607.48, plus reasonable attorney fees totaling $10,337.90 (fees recoverable under a contract provision).
The court will sign a judgment form in the sum of $36,636.60.
2) Chris Matthews, et al., v. Joseph Gaspardone, Jr., et al. (SCV-244007):
The defendant Joseph Gaspardone, Jr., has demurred to the eleventh cause of action alleging that he engaged in insider trading, a cause of action pled in the fifth amended complaint. Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e). The demurrer is opposed by plaintiffs.
The court will take judicial notice as respectively requested by both sides.
The plaintiffs lack standing to assert this particular cause of action against Mr. Gaspardone. California Corporation Code section 25502. This claim is also inadequately stated.
There is no basis suggested for how any future amendment will correct the pleading deficiencies, a problem made more evident by discovery references.
The demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend. A correction appears unavailable as a matter of law. Schonfeldt v. State of Cal. (1998) 16 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1465.
3) Clyde Greco, Jr., attorney-in-fact for Clyde Greco and Helen Greco, v. Adam Greco, Carla Greco, and Cody Greco (SCV-250209):
The defendants filed motions to quash certain subpoenas or to obtain protective orders. The motions are opposed by plaintiffs.
The dispute was referred to a court-affiliated discovery facilitator—Denise Schissler. She has issued a positive report.
The parties have reached an understanding regarding the deposition subpoena that involves records held by the University of California at San Diego. Ms. Schissler will review those records in camera and will make possible redactions before disclosure.
She is still working with the parties concerning a deposition subpoena for bank records. The lawyers will provide further briefing to her and the same process as described above may then be followed.
At her request, the hearing on the motion will be continued for sixty days to Tuesday, July 17, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.
4) Diego Oseguera v. The Bank of New York Mellon, et al. (SCV-250219):
The defendants have demurred again. This time to the first amended complaint. Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e). The second demurrer is opposed by plaintiff.
The court will take judicial notice as requested by demurring parties, but not as to the truth of the contents of the Civ. Code section 2924 declaration.
The plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action for a violation of Civil Code section 2923.5. An answer will be due 10 days after the service of the ruling.
However, the plaintiff has completely failed to state causes of action for fraud, unfair business practice, and breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
It appears that these allegations are both time-barred and not legally pleadable. Therefore, the general demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend as to those claims. Schonfeldt v. State of California (1998) 16 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1465.
