Sep 25, 2016

 

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS               PLEASE NOTE:

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2016, 3:00pm        This calendar will be called by

COURTROOM 19 – Judge Allan D. Hardcastle         Commissioner Jennifer Dollard

3055 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA  95403

Court Call is available for all Law and Motion appearances, EXCEPT parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption which are mandatory appearances.

** To set up Court Call- Please call them 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 contact the Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6730 by 4:00 p.m. on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2016.  Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other parties of their intent to appear.

 

1.      SCV-251814 County of Sonoma v. Davis:

Appearance is required.

The court is in receipt of the receiver’s First Report.  The court is satisfied with the report as to all past performance.  The Court requests further information regarding the decision whether to incur substantially greater costs in fully refurbishing the property, or reducing costs in restoring the property to a minimally habitable condition sufficient to pass inspection.  Both options seem to contemplate a sale of the property ultimately.  Specifically, the court invites further input on the following:

 

1)      Are there presently any recorded liens secured by the property?

2)      If the property were minimally restored and sold in an “as is” condition, what range of total proceeds could be expected from the sale?

3)      If the property were fully refurbished and sold in a substantially improved condition, what range of total proceeds could be expected from the sale?

4)      The receiver’s current scope of appointment does not appear to include authorization to sell the property, what impact does this have on the decision regarding the scope of work?

 

The court would also note that the present decisions are requested based on “informal broker’s price opinion,” leading the court to inquire whether there is a sufficient basis on which to make the orders requested at this time.  If the information requested is not available at the time of the hearing, the timing for the parties to provide the additional information shall be discussed at the hearing.

 

2.      SCV-256870 Verranzono v. Gehl:

            ARNCO’s Motion for Summary Judgment:

            A summary judgment may be granted when it is shown that the entire “action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” CCP §437c(a).  Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the other side to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exist precluding a granting of the motion. See CCP §437c(p); Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 763, 780.  Here, ARNCO presents evidence that the polymer insert demonstrates no evidence that it deformed, or that it contributed at all to the alleged incident. (UMF # 30.)  Further, ARNCO submits evidence that the polymer could not have “folded” as reported by the witness. (UMF # 32.)  The Plaintiff has filed a non-opposition to the motion, and therefore has not disputed these facts, or established that there are any other triable issues of fact in dispute.

Accordingly, ARNCO has demonstrated, through undisputed evidence, that its component was not involved in the alleged incident.  ARNCO’s motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety.

The Defendant shall prepare an order after hearing consistent with this ruling.

            TITAN’s Motion for Summary Judgment:

            A summary judgment may be granted when it is shown that the entire “action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” CCP §437c(a).  Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the other side to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exist precluding a granting of the motion. See CCP §437c(p); Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 763, 780.  Here, Titan Tire contends that there are no facts that establish that any of its products that may have been on the Gehl telehandler were defective or that any purported defect caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. (See SSUF Nos. 18, 20, 26, 27, 29, and 30.) Moreover, Titan presents evidence that the Plaintiff cannot prevail on his warranty claim against Titan for a lack of evidence of privity. (See SSUF No. 13.) The Plaintiff has filed a notice of non-opposition to Titan’s motion, and therefore has not disputed these facts, or established that there are any other triable issues of material fact in dispute.

Accordingly, Titan Tire has demonstrated, through undisputed evidence, that there is no basis for liability against it.  Titan Tire’s motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety.

The Defendant shall prepare an order after hearing consistent with this ruling.

3.      SCV-256887 Fowler v. Driversdoor:

            The motions in this matter have been dropped from calendar by the moving party.

 

4.      SCV-257717 Kanazawa v. Singler-Ernster:

            By stipulation of the parties, the hearing on the demurrer in this matter has been continued the law and motion calendar on October 12, 2016 at 3:00pm in Department 19.

 

5.      SCV-258930 Cortez v. Santa Rosa Memorial:

            The motions have been dropped from calendar as moot, as an amended complaint has been filed.

 

6.      SCV-258938 Pochari v. Bodega Harbour HOA:

            The demurrer in this matter has been dropped from calendar as moot, as an amended complaint has been filed.

 

7.      SCV-258977 Ross v. Gray:

            Plaintiff’s motion for preference is granted.  Plaintiff’s motion is supported by her attorney‘s declaration establishing that plaintiff has a substantial interest in the action as a whole, and that plaintiff’s health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation.  An attorney’s declaration based on information and belief as to the plaintiff’s medical condition is made admissible for purposes of this motion by CCP section 36.5.  Given the plaintiff’s age, physical and mental infirmities established by her motion, the court finds it is in the interests of justice to exercise its discretion and grant the motion.  Defendants’ evidentiary objections are overruled.

This matter shall be set for trial on a date not later than January 19, 2017, 120 days hence.  This matter is set on the CMC calendar on October 13, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 19, for trial setting.  The case management hearing set for October 27, 2016 is vacated.

Plaintiff shall prepare a proposed order consistent with this ruling.

 

8.      SCV-258985 Porter v. Convergent:

                Defendant’s motion to stay this action pending resolution of the related federal action is hereby granted.  This matter is placed on the CMC calendar on January 12, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 19 for status of federal action and stay.  The CMC presently set for November 3, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 19 is vacated.

© 2016 Superior Court of Sonoma County