Sep 24, 2017

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

FRIDAY,  SEPTEMBER 22, 2017, 9:30 A.M.

Courtroom 12 – Honorable Bradford DeMeo

600 Administration Drive, Santa Rosa, CA

 

CourtCall is available for all Law and Motion appearances, EXCEPT parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption which are mandatory appearances.  CourtCall can be reached 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) 521-6547 by 4:00 p.m. today, Thursday, September 21, 2017.  Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.  Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.

 

 

1.   MCV-239266,   American Contractors v. Hauck

Plaintiff  has met its burden showing that Defendants Valerie Hauck and Thomas Miller have failed to respond to any of the outstanding discovery served by Plaintiff on May 22, 2017. Plaintiff granted an extension of time for the responses until July 17, 2017.  According to the declarations filed in these unopposed motions, Defendants have failed and refused to provide any responses to the outstanding discovery requests.  All of Plaintiff’s motions filed and on calendar for this hearing are GRANTED unless Defendants provide proper responses by the time of the hearing.

Whether or not responses are provided by the time of the hearing, the court imposes sanctions on Defendant Valerie Hauck in the amount of $1320.00 and Thomas Miller in the amount of $1320, for failure to timely respond to the proper discovery. 

 

2.   SCV-258018,  Precision Backhoe v. Hastings Properties
            This matter is continued to September 29, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 12, due to the Court’s workload.

 

3.   SCV-258637, Beasley v. Vaughan
            Plaintiff has provided Amended Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents.  Thus, the discovery motion is moot.  Sanctions in the amount of $450.00 are appropriate in that it appears no one from plaintiff’s counsel’s office contacted Defendant’s counsel to indicate that the Amended Responses were forthcoming.  The request for an order directing plaintiff to withdraw all objections in his discovery responses is denied. 

 

4.   SCV-258930,   Cortez v. Santa Rosa Memorial

At issue in the instant motion is Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant Sutter’s discovery requests.  Said responses were due on October 7, 2016.  Despite attempting to meet and confer regarding plaintiff’s failure to respond, plaintiff has not served responses to any of the discovery requests.  Accordingly, Sutter’s motion to compel plaintiff to provide verified discovery responses and award defendant $870.00 in sanctions for the time and costs incurred in bringing this motion is granted.

Defendant shall prepare an order consistent with this court’s ruling.

The demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint is continued to October 6, 2017.

© 2017 Superior Court of Sonoma County