Law & Motion Calendar
The 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, YOU MUST NOTIFY Judge Pardo’s Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6602 and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear, and whether that appearance is in person or via Zoom, no later 4:00 p.m. the court day immediately preceding the day of the hearing.
If the tentative ruling is accepted, no appearance is necessary unless otherwise indicated.
TO JOIN ZOOM ONLINE:
Department 19 Hearings
- MeetingID: 160-421-7577
- Password: 410765
TO JOIN ZOOM BY PHONE:
- By Phone (same meeting ID and password as listed for each calendar):
- +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)
PLEASE NOTE: The Court’s Official Court Reporters are “not available” within the meaning of California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956, for court reporting of civil cases.
Tentative Rulings
Friday, February 28, 2025 9:00 am
1. 23CV01937, Looney v. Bastard Bar-B.Que, LLC
Plaintiff Gary Looney (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed against Defendants Bastards Bar-B-Que, LLC (doing business as Bastards American Canteen) and Nicholas Velez, individually as guarantor for Bastards Bar-B-Que, to appoint Landon McPherson as receiver to seize and sell Defendant’s California Liquor License number 574411 to satisfy the $6,849.61 judgment entered April 5, 2024 (the “Judgment”). The unopposed motion is GRANTED, per California Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) section 564(b)(3).
I. Governing Law
Per C.C.P. section 564(b)(3), a court may appoint a receiver to carry out a judgment entered into effect. The receiver may enforce the judgment where the judgment creditor has shown that, considering the interests of both the judgment creditor and debtor, the appointment of a receiver will reasonably allow the fair and orderly satisfaction of the judgment. (C.C.P. § 708.620.) Specifically, a court can appoint a receiver to transfer the judgment debtor’s interest in an alcoholic beverage license for the purpose of satisfying a judgment. (C.C.P. § 708.630.)
II. Analysis
Plaintiff was unable to enforce this Court’s Judgment and now moves to appoint Mr. McPherson as receiver to take possession of and, if necessary, sell Defendant’s California Liquor License number 606437 to satisfy the outstanding Judgment. (Motion, pp. 2–3.) Defendant’s license is not subject to any security interests except for obligations under California law. (Motion, p. 2.) Plaintiff provided sufficient notice of the motion’s hearing. Defendant has not opposed the motion.
Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that the appointment of Mr. McPherson as receiver is warranted because Defendant has never responded to the complaint, to any post-judgment discovery requests even after this Court’s order compelling responses, or to any of Plaintiff’s efforts to enforce the judgment entered. Mr. McPherson is a consultant broker for CAL ABC License Services and specializes in the acquisition and sale of liquor licenses in California with over 15 years of experience in the field.
III. Conclusion
As Plaintiff has satisfied the minimum requirements for the appointment of a receiver, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Court appoints Mr. McPherson as receiver to take possession of and, if necessary, sell Defendant’s California Liquor License number 574411 to satisfy the $6,849.61 judgment entered April 5, 2024. Plaintiff shall submit a written order to the Court consistent with this tentative ruling and in compliance with Rule of Court 3.1312.
2. 24CV00939, Guerard v. SC1 LLC
Plaintiff Mary Maclin Guerard’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for relief from dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) Section 473(b) is GRANTED.
- Procedural History
Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendant SC1 LLC (“Defendant”) for her injuries sustained in a trip and fall over broken sidewalk pavement. (Motion, p. 3.) There was confusion as to who was responsible for maintenance of the sidewalk where Plaintiff sustained her injuries. (Motion, p. 3.) After service of the Complaint on Defendant SC1 LLC, Plaintiff was informed that the adjacent property was owned by SCI Office LLC and not SC1 LLC. (Motion, p. 3.) Plaintiff claims that it agreed to dismiss SCI LLC after communicating with its attorneys but that Plaintiff mistakenly dismissed SCI Office LLC instead of SC1 LLC. (Motion, p. 3.) Plaintiff now motions the Court to set aside the dismissal of SCI Office LLC under C.C.P. 473(b). The Court continued this motion from February 21, 2025 to February 28, 2025 to allow for Defendant to file a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed as required by C.C.P. 473(b).
- Governing Law
A. Discretionary Relief
C.C.P. Section 473 allows the court to amend pleadings and relieve parties from a judgment or order taken against a party. Under Section 473(b), an application for discretionary relief from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceedings taken against a party or their legal representative must be (1) due to the party or their legal representative’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed; (3) made within a reasonable time not to exceed six months after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. Relief under the discretionary provision of the statute only allows relief from attorney error fairly imputable to the client, i.e., whether a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances might have made the same error. (Toho-Towa Co. v. Morgan Creek Prods., Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1112 [internal citations omitted].) Section 473 is remedial and is to be liberally construed to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits. (Taliaferro v. Taliaferro (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 216, 220.)
- Analysis
Plaintiff dismissed SCI Office LLC instead of SC1 LLC due to her counsel’s mistake in listing the wrong party to be dismissed. Given that the names of the two companies are so similar, this mistake could have been made by a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances. (Toho-Towa Co., Inc., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at 1112.) This application for relief was made within six months after the dismissal of SCI Office LLC. Plaintiff’s counsel dismissed the wrong party from the action on September 5, 2024, was made aware of this error on or around October 4, 2024, and subsequently filed this motion for relief from dismissal on November 12, 2024, well within the six-month timeline. Lastly, Plaintiff filed a corrected request for dismissal, requesting for SC1 LLC to be dismissed. Thus, Plaintiff has met the statutory requirements for relief under C.C.P. Section 473(b).
IV. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion for relief from dismissal is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall submit a written order on its motion to the Court consistent with this tentative ruling and in compliance with Rule of Court 3.1312(a) and (b).
**This is the end of the Tentative Rulings.***