Superior Court, State of California



DATE: 14 December 2021

TIME: 9:00 A.M.

This Department prefers that litigants use Zoom for Law and Motion and for Case Management Calendars. Court Call is also acceptable.

All Courts of California celebrate the diversity of the attorneys and the litigants who appear in our Courts. Do not hesitate to correct the Court or Court Staff concerning the pronunciation of any name or how anyone prefers to be addressed. As this Court is fond of saying, “with a name like mine, I try to be careful how I pronounce the names of others.” If your client is with you, please inform the Court how your client would prefer to be introduced. The Court encourages the use of diacritical marks, multiple surnames and the like for the names of attorneys, litigants and in court papers.

|Join Zoom Meeting |Join by phone: |One tap mobile |

| (669) 900-6833 |+16699006833,,961 4442 7712# |

|NFBpSjlEam5xUT09 |Meeting ID: 961 4442 7712 | |

|Meeting ID: 961 4442 7712 | | |

|Password: 017350 | | |

PLEASE READ THIS PAGE IN ITS ENTIRETY AS SOME OF THE PROTOCOLS HAVE CHANGED.

Please check this Tentative Rulings page before making any appearance.

Whether appearing in person or on a virtual platform, the usual custom and practices of decorum and attire apply.

This Court expects all counsel and litigants to comply with the Tentative Rulings Procedures that are outlined in Local Civil Rule 7(E) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308. If the Court has not directed argument, oral argument must be permitted only if a party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party's intention to appear. A party must notify all other parties by telephone or in person. A failure to timely notify this Court and/or the opposing parties may result in the tentative ruling being the final order in the matter.

Please notify this Court immediately if the matter will not be heard on the scheduled date. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1304(b). If a party fails to appear at a law and motion hearing without having given notice, this Court may take the matter off calendar, to be reset only upon motion, or may rule on the matter. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1304(d). A party may give notice that he or she will not appear at a law and motion hearing and submit the matter without an appearance unless this Court orders otherwise. This Court will rule on the motion as if the party had appeared. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1304(c). Any uncontested matter or matters to which stipulations have been reached can be processed through the Clerk in the usual manner. Please include a proposed order.

All proposed orders and papers should be submitted to this Department’s e-filing queue. Do not send documents to the Department email unless directed to do so.

APPEARANCES.

While the Court will still allow physical appearances, all litigants are encouraged to use the Zoom platform for Law & Motion appearances and Case Management Conferences. Use of other virtual platform devices will make it difficult for all parties fully to participate in the hearings. Please note the requirement of entering a password (highlighted above.)

As for personal appearances, protocols concerning social distancing and facial coverings in compliance with the directives of the Public Health Officer will be enforced. Currently, facemasks are required in all courthouses. If you appear in person, it will be helpful if you wear a disposable paper mask while using the courtroom microphones so that your voice will not be muffled.

Individuals who wish to access the Courthouse are advised to bring a plastic bag within which to place any personal items that are to go through the metal detector located at the doorway to the courthouse.

Sign-ins will begin at about 8:30 AM. Court staff will assist you when you sign in. If you are using the Zoom virtual platform, it will helpful if you “rename” yourself as follows: in the upper right corner of the screen with your name you will see a blue box with three horizontal dots. Click on that and then click on the “rename” feature. You may type your name as: Line #/name/party. If you are a member of the public who wishes to view the Zoom session and remain anonymous, you may simply sign in as “Public.”

The Santa Clara County Superior Court has established listen-only telephone Lines to allow remote access to public court proceedings. To listen to a public court proceeding in Department 20, you may dial 888-251-2909. When prompted, enter the access code number 4362730 when prompted, followed by the pound or hashtag (#) sign.

COURT REPORTERS.

This session will not be recorded. No electronic recordings, video, still photography or audio capture of this live stream is allowed without the expressed, written permission of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. State and Local Court rules prohibit photographing or recording of court proceedings whether in the courtroom or while listening on the Public Access Line or other virtual platform, without a Court Order. See Local General Rule 2(A) and 2(B); California Rules of Court, rule 1.150.

This Court no longer provides for Court Reporters in civil actions except in limited circumstances. If you wish to arrange for a court reporter, please use Local Form #CV-5100. All reporters are encouraged to work from a remote location. Please inform this Court if any reporter wishes to work in the courtroom. This Court will approve all requests to bring a court reporter. Counsel should meet and confer on the use of a court reporter. Occasionally each side will retain a court reporter which leaves this Court in a conundrum as to which reporter will be the official reporter for the purposes of the hearing.

PROTOCOLS DURING THE HEARINGS.

During the calling of any hearing, this Court has found that the Zoom video platform works very well. But whether using Zoom or any telephone, it is preferable to use a landline if possible. IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS TO SPEAK SLOWLY. Plaintiff should speak first, followed by any other person. All persons should spell their names for the benefit of Court Staff. Please do not use any hands-free mode if at all possible. Headsets or earbuds of good quality will be of great assistance to minimize feedback and distortion.

The Court will prepare the Final Order unless stated otherwise below or at the hearing. Counsel are to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.

Troubleshooting Tentative Rulings.

If you see last week’s tentative rulings, you have checked prior to the posting of the current week’s tentative rulings. You will need to either “REFRESH” or “QUIT” your browser and reopen it. Another suggestion is to “clean the cache” of your browser. If you fail to do any of these, your browser may pull up old information from old cookies even after the tentative rulings have been posted.

Tentative Rulings Are Continued Below. Full Orders Are On The Following Pages.

|LINE # |CASE # |CASE TITLE |RULING |

|LINE 1 |21CV383353 |Courtney Park, Daniel Park v. Sean Azoulay, Jason |Demurrer of Defendant Jason Caramanis to the Complaint. |

| | |Caramanis, Yossi First |CONTINUED TO 27 JANUARY 2022 AT 9:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 20 |

|LINE 2 |19CV353464 |Irene Basistei v. Eric Dominique Malek |Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Taking of Deposition of Defendant |

| | | |Cross-Complainant Eric Dominique Malek with Production of Documents |

| | | |and Request for Monetary Sanctions. |

| | | |The motion of plaintiffs to compel the deposition of defendant is |

| | | |GRANTED. Defendant is to submit to a deposition in a code-compliant |

| | | |location within 21 days of the filing and service of this Order. |

| | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 3 |20CV368472 |Tesla, Inc. v. Rivian Automotive, et al. |Application of Adam S. Gershenson, Esq. to Appear Pro Hac Vice for |

| | | |Plaintiff Tesla, Inc. |

| | | |The application is GRANTED. |

| | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 4 |20CV368472 |Tesla, Inc. v. Rivian Automotive, et al. |Motion Plaintiff to Compel All Defendants to Provide Responses to |

| | | |Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. |

| | | |First, if plaintiff has not already done so, plaintiff is to identify |

| | | |and produce copies of all documents it contends that were |

| | | |misappropriated by the defendants within 30 days of the filing and |

| | | |service of this Order. |

| | | |Second, within 30 days after the foregoing disclosure, defendants are |

| | | |to provide code compliant responses to the discovery requests in |

| | | |question. This Court expects that plaintiff is of a mind that a |

| | | |reasonable number of extensions will be granted. |

| | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 5 |21CV387676 |Minjong Kim v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance |Motion of Defendant to Compel Plaintiff to Attend Deposition and for |

| | |Company |Monetary Sanctions. |

| | | |The motion is unopposed. The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to code |

| | | |compliant answers within 20 days of the filing and service of this |

| | | |Order. Objections are deemed WAIVED. |

| | | |The requests of moving party/respondent for monetary sanctions is |

| | | |GRANTED. Petitioner Kim and his counsel are to pay the sum of $735.00 |

| | | |to defense counsel within 45 days of the filing and service of this |

| | | |Order. |

| | | |NO FORMAL TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 6 |21CV387676 |Minjong Kim v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance |Motion of Defendant to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Verified Discovery |

| | |Company |Responses (Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests|

| | | |for Production of Documents, Sets 1) and Request for Monetary |

| | | |Sanctions. |

| | | |The motion is unopposed. The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to appear|

| | | |for deposition in a code compliant location within 30 days of the |

| | | |filing and service of this Order. The requests of moving |

| | | |party/respondent for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Petitioner Kim and|

| | | |his counsel are to pay the sum of $1,170.00 to defense counsel within |

| | | |45 days of the filing and service of this Order. |

| | | |NO FORMAL TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 7 |18CV338185 |Sanjay Badshah v. Himanshu Kansara, Khazanch Kansara, |Motion of Ronald A. Cabanayan to Withdraw As Counsel of Record for |

| | |Wincere, Inc. |Defendant Wincere, Inc. |

| | | |The answer of this defendant was ordered stricken by order of this |

| | | |Court filed on 15 June 2021. Counsel for plaintiff was given leave to |

| | | |file a default and proceed to judgment. |

| | | |The motion of Ronald A. Cabanayan to be relieved as counsel for |

| | | |plaintiffs is GRANTED. The Order will take effect upon the filing and|

| | | |service of the executed order of this Court and an order that is |

| | | |written on Form MC-053 and that otherwise complies with California |

| | | |Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e). The form should reflect the next court|

| | | |date as 4 January 2022 at 11:00 AM for trial setting. Counsel should |

| | | |submit the proposed order through the e-filing queue or bring it to |

| | | |the courtroom on the day of the hearing for execution by the Court. |

| | | |NO FORMAL TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 8 |20CV369225 |Hudson Concourse, LLC v. Mission Pacific Global Law |Motion of Plaintiff to Vacate Dismissal. |

| | |Group |The motion is GRANTED. The matter will be set for a Trial Setting |

| | | |Conference on 26 April 2022 at 11:00 AM in Department 20. |

| | | |NO FORMAL TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 9 |21CV380579 |Jacinda Duval v. Ford Motor Co., Henry Curtis Ford |Motion of Defendant Henry Curtis Ford to Compel Arbitration and Stay |

| | | |Action. |

| | | |On 10 December 2021, counsel for plaintiff filed a dismissal of the |

| | | |entire action. The motion is MOOT. The matter is OFF CALENDAR WITHOUT |

| | | |PREJUDICE. |

| | | |NO FORMAL TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 10 |21CV380579 |Jacinda Duval v. Ford Motor Co., Henry Curtis Ford |Motion of Defendant Ford Motor Company to Compel Arbitration and Stay |

| | | |Action. |

| | | |On 10 December 2021, counsel for plaintiff filed a dismissal of the |

| | | |entire action. The motion is MOOT. The matter is OFF CALENDAR WITHOUT |

| | | |PREJUDICE. |

| | | |NO FORMAL TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 11 |21CV380664 |City of Milpitas v. Rajeev Madnawat |Hearing on Petition of Respondent Re: Disposition of Firearms. |

| | | |The Court believes that a further hearing on this matter is indicated |

| | | |and would like to set a formal hearing on the petition. |

| | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 12 |21CV382618 |SecureCom v. City of Palo Alto, Swinerton Builders, |Petition of Defendant McGrath Electric Inc. to Compel Arbitration and |

| | |McGrath Electric, et al. |Stay Action. |

| | | |This action has several parties who are not signatories to the |

| | | |arbitration. This could lead to inconsistent results should the |

| | | |matters proceed to both arbitration and by way of the common law |

| | | |lawsuit. |

| | | |SecureCom also makes a credible argument that McGrath Electric Inc. |

| | | |has waived the right to arbitrate by failing to abide by the dispute |

| | | |resolution process set forth in the Prime Contract. Additionally, |

| | | |SecureCom asserts that it attempted on multiple occasions to |

| | | |participate in direct negotiations with both McGrath and Swinerton who|

| | | |both refused to allow participation in these negotiations. |

| | | |The petition is DENIED. |

| | | |NO FORMAL TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 13 |21CV388720 |The Khemani Family, Prakash Khemani , Priya Khemani v.|Motion of Plaintiffs to Compel Arbitration, Appointment of Arbitrator,|

| | |Homayoun Talieh, Virginia Talieh |and for Monetary Sanctions. |

| | | |CONTINUED TO 8 FEBRUARY 2022 AT 9:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 20 |

|LINE 14 |21CV387052 |Santa Clara Valley Water District v. PS Business Park |Petition of Santa Clara Valley Water District for Order Permitting |

| | |LP |Entry. |

| | | |This Court believes that a hearing to address the respective concerns |

| | | |of the parties may be necessary and in the best interests of the |

| | | |parties. |

| | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 15 |21CV378985 |Prosperum Capital LLC v. California Croissant Inc. |Order of Examination against Defendant Thuan Nguyen. |

| | |LLC, Thuan Nguyen |The file reflects proper proofs of service. |

| | | |Unless the parties agree otherwise, both parties are to appear in |

| | | |Department 20 at 9:00 AM. Social Distancing Protocols will be in |

| | | |effect, including the use of appropriate facial masks. As an |

| | | |alternative to appearing in Department 20, the parties are strongly |

| | | |urged to appear virtually whereby the appropriate oath will be |

| | | |administered by the Court and the parties may conduct the examination |

| | | |off-line and report back to the Court. The parties may meet and |

| | | |confer on how to conduct the examination remotely. |

| | | |On you are you 23 November 2021, plaintiff filed a full satisfaction |

| | | |of judgment releasing both defendants. |

| | | |The parties should use the Tentative Ruling Protocol to advise this |

| | | |Court how they wish to proceed. |

| | | |NO FORMAL TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 16 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 17 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 18 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 19 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 20 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 21 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 22 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 23 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 24 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 25 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 26 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 27 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 28 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 29 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 30 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

| | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 1

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 2

|SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA | |

|COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA | |

| | |

|DEPARTMENT 20 | |

| | |

|161 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 | |

|408.882.2320 · 408.882.2296 (fax) | |

|smanoukian@ | |

| | |

| |(For Clerk's Use Only) |

|CASE NO.: | 19CV353464 | Irene Basistei vs Eric Malek |

|DATE: 14 December 2021 |TIME: 9:00 am |LINE NUMBER: 6 |

|This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 20 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. |

|Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 20 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM on 13 December 2021. Please |

|specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and Counsel. |

|---oooOooo--- |

|Order on Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Taking of Deposition of |

|Defendant/Cross-Complainant Eric Dominique Malek |

|with Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions. |

I. Statement of Facts.

Plaintiff filed this complaint on 20 August 2019.[1]

The parties were married in October 2008. They have two minor children. Both parties have alleged in their complaint and cross-complaint various acts of domestic violence against each other. The parties separated in 2017.

Plaintiff claims that, over their nine year marriage, defendant committed acts of domestic violence and domestic abuse. Defendant filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff, alleging that plaintiff verbally and physically abused defendant.

At the last hearing this Court was led to believe that defendant for which he was criminally charged and that defendant was convicted. In opposition to the present motion, defense counsel states “[t]he charges were later resolved in Mr. Malek’s favor.” Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition, page 3, lines 3-4.) The parties filed for dissolution of marriage on 7 September 2020. Plaintiff applied for and received A Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) against defendant. This order requires that he stay 300 yards away from plaintiff and that he not contact her directly or indirectly in any way including but not limited to telephone, mail, email or other electronic means.

On 28 September 2018, defendant filed for a DVRO against plaintiff which was granted. The order required that plaintiff not contact him directly or indirectly in any way including but not limited to telephone, mail, email or other electronic means.

This case has some history with this Court. On 7 January 2021 this Court heard the motion of defendant for a protective order concerning the appearance of plaintiff at a virtual platform deposition of the defendant. There was a claim that this appearance violated the DVRO. Defendant appeared for a deposition via Zoom on 9 September 2020. Counsel for plaintiff did not advise defense counsel that plaintiff was planning on attending the deposition. Defense counsel noted an anonymous participant in the virtual conference room. When he asked about it, counsel for plaintiff confirm that plaintiff was attending the deposition. This is claimed to be a violation of the DVRO against plaintiff. The parties apparently tried to work out ground rules for the continued deposition but have been unable to agree. This Court offered guidelines for the conduct of the depositions and apparently this did not proceed well. Defense counsel states that the deposition was concluded on 25 October 2021.

Defense counsel also states that responsive documents were produced on 9 September 2020 with an additional response made on 13 October 2021. Defense counsel states that it appears this motion is based on the assertion of counsel for plaintiff that there must be more documents.

It seems that the parties are going to attend mediation on the same day as the hearing on this motion.

II. Motion to Compel Deposition and Production of Documents.

This motion was filed on 17 August 2021, almost 4 months ago. The issue concerning the deposition of as described above defendant arose about a year before the filing of this motion. Despite several informal attempts and two formal notices of deposition (defense counsel states there were three formal notices), defendant has not appeared for a deposition.

Plaintiff seeks an order of this Court compelling defendant to appear at a deposition and seeks monetary sanctions for costs incurred in the making of this motion as well as other expenses. Defendant opposes the motion, asserting that defendant served proper objections to the request for production of documents, that defendant did indeed appear for the deposition and produced all of the requested documents. Defendant seeks monetary sanctions.

III. Analysis.

A. Meet & Confer.”

While not as formal as a meet-and-confer requirement, the moving party still must make a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue before bringing the matter before the Court. In Leko v. Cornerstone Home Inspection (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1124, the Court held:

“Implicit in the requirement that counsel contact the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance is a requirement that counsel listen to the reasons offered and make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue. Here, the failure to appear was due to oversight and opposing counsel expressed a willingness to reschedule the depositions at a mutually convenient date. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Pyfrom did not comply with his obligations under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025, subdivision (j)(3)(B). (See Estate of Ruchti (1993) 12 Cal App.4th 1593, 1601-1602.) Sanctions were properly awarded under section 2023, subdivision (a)(3) and (9).” (Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1124.)

B. Appearance for Deposition.

“The service of a deposition notice under [Code of Civil Procedure,] Section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2025.280(a).)

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under [Code of Civil Procedure,] Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under [Code of Civil Procedure,] Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2025.450(a).)[2]

“A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2025.450(a).)

The motion of plaintiffs to compel the deposition of defendant is GRANTED. Defendant is to submit to a deposition in a code-compliant location within 21 days of the filing and service of this Order.

IV. Tentative Ruling and Hearing.

The Tentative Ruling was duly posted.

V. Case Management.

The trial in this matter is set for 24 January 2022.

VI. Conclusion and Order.

The motion of plaintiffs to compel the deposition of defendant is GRANTED. Defendant is to submit to a deposition in a code-compliant location within 21 days of the filing and service of this Order.

|____________________________________ |_________________________________________________________ |

|DATED: |HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN |

| |Judge of the Superior Court |

| |County of Santa Clara |

- oo0oo –

Calendar Line 3

|SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA | |

|COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA | |

| | |

|DEPARTMENT 20 | |

| | |

|161 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 | |

|408.882.2320 · 408.882.2296 (fax) | |

|smanoukian@ | |

| | |

| |(For Clerk's Use Only) |

|CASE No.: |20CV368472 |Tesla, Inc. v. Rivian Automotive, et al. |

|DATE: 14 December 2021 |TIME: 9:00 am |LINE NUMBER: 3 |

|This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 20 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. |

|Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 20 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM on 13 December 2021. Please |

|specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and Counsel. |

|---oooOooo--- |

|Order on Application of Adam S. Gershenson, Esq. |

|to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiff Tesla, Inc. |

The Verified Application of Mr. Gershenson to appear pro hac vice declares that he is a member of good standing before the State Bars of Massachusetts and New York as well as several federal district and circuit courts. He is not regularly employed in the state of California, and he is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional or other activities in the state of California. He has not made repeated appearances [California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(b)] in California courts within the past two years except for two cases in the San Francisco Superior Court and in the Northern District of California.

Mr. Gershenson will be associated with Ms. Christina S. Davis Esq., and Michael G. Rhoades, Esq. members in good standing in the California Bar. These two attorneys maintain offices in Santa Monica California and San Francisco, California respectively.

The Gentleman understands that he is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court to the same extent as a regular member of the State Bar of California. The requisite fee has been paid. The Application further establishes that Mr. Gershenson has satisfied each of the requirements for admission as counsel pro hac vice as set forth in Rule 9.40.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court GRANTS the application.

|____________________________________ |_________________________________________________________ |

|DATED: |HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN |

| |Judge of the Superior Court |

| |County of Santa Clara |

- oo0oo –

Calendar Line 4

|SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA | |

|COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA | |

| | |

|DEPARTMENT 20 | |

| | |

|161 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 | |

|408.882.2320 · 408.882.2296 (fax) | |

|smanoukian@ | |

| | |

| |(For Clerk's Use Only) |

|CASE No.: |20CV368472 |Tesla, Inc. v. Rivian Automotive, et al. |

|DATE: 14 December 2021 |TIME: 9:00 am |Line No.: 4 |

|This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 20 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. |

|Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 20 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM on 13 December 2021. Please |

|specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and Counsel. |

|---oooOooo--- |

|Order on Motion Plaintiff to Compel All Defendants |

|to Provide Responses to Special Interrogatories |

|and Request for Production of Documents. |

I. Statement of Facts.

The facts of this matter are well known to the Court and to counsel.

II. Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Defendants to Provide Discovery Responses.

On 23 March 2021, Tesla served requests for production and special interrogatories relating to its claims that defendants misappropriated confidential and proprietary documents that Tesla claimed that the defendants misappropriated. Tesla also seeks nonprivileged information relating to a claim by Rivian that it has investigated the claim of theft of trade secrets and taken appropriate response of actions.

Defendants have refused to comply with the discovery requests, claiming that the trade secret disclosures made by Tesla were inadequate and therefore discovery was not yet open. Defendants claim that until the parties agree that the disclosures were adequate, discovery was “premature.” Defendants assert that discovery would be considered open when the parties reached agreement on the adequacy of the trade secret disclosures.

The present motion was filed on 15 September 2021. Defendants filed a combined opposition on 1 December 2021.

III. Analysis.

A. “Meet & Confer.”

“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2016.040.)

While meeting and conferring is not required for a motion to compel initial responses, the parties are always encouraged to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order. The Court has concerns when there does not appear to be any effort to resolve discovery issues without Court intervention. (See McElhaney v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 285, 289.)

If no response has been made to discovery requests within the time permitted by Code of Civil Procedure, the “meet and confer” rule does not come into play, and compliance therewith is not prerequisite to a motion to compel answers. (See Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.290(b); see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404; Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.)

The “meet & confer” started at least on 12 April 2021.

On 7 May 2021, Tesla served amended trade secret disclosures.

On 12 July 2021, more than 45 days after defendants served unverified and (according to plaintiff) boilerplate objections, Defendants further claimed for the first time that that the 45 day window within which to move to compel further responses had elapsed and therefore defendants do not need to provide any further responses to the discovery requests. In other words, the discovery requests have been that issue for more than 45 days and plaintiff therefore waived its right to compel further responses.

On 4 August 2021, defendant Rivian filed a motion to compel plaintiff to further identify its claims trade secrets. The other defendants ultimately joined in the motion. There does not appear to be any mention about the 45 day discovery cutoff.

B. Right to Discovery.

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2017.010.)

Discovery is allowed for any matters that are relevant to the subject matter of the action, not privileged, and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See Code of Civil Procedure, § 2017.010; Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223.) Information is “relevant to the subject matter” if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. (See Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) These relevance standards are applied liberally with any doubt generally resolved in favor of discovery. (See Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.)

In responding to discovery, the responding party is to make a good faith effort to determine if it is able to provide meaningful responses to the various discovery requests. This Court frowns upon a party’s “deliberate indifference to responsibility in discovery” and has “no time for such antics.” (See Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian, 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1618 (1994).)

A trade secret is “information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”  (Civil Code, § 3246.1(d); see IMAX Corp. v. Cinema Technologies, Inc. (1998) 152 F.3d 1161, 1165.

Code of Civil Procedure, § 2019.210 states: “In any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, before commencing discovery related to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity subject to any orders that may be appropriate under Section 3426.5 of the Civil Code.” Civil Code, § 3426.5 requires this Court to “preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means.”

Defendants seek to prohibit all discovery until plaintiff identifies complies with Code of Civil Procedure, § 2109.210.

C. The Informal Discovery Conference.

On 27 August 2021, this Court took time to hold and Informal Discovery Conference with the parties via the Zoom virtual platform. On 12 July 2021, more than 45 days after defendants served unverified and (according to plaintiff) boilerplate objections, Defendants further claimed for the first time that that the 45 day window within which to move to compel further responses had elapsed and therefore defendants do not need to provide any further responses to the discovery requests. In other words, defendants argue that the discovery requests have been that issue for more than 45 days and plaintiff therefore waived its right to compel further responses.

Ultimately following the IDC, the Court set the present motion for 14 December 2021.

On 28 September 2021, the motion of defendants to compel plaintiff to further disclose its claims trade secrets was argued and submitted. The formal order was filed on 14 October 2021. The Court ruled that “[f]or starters, Tesla is ordered to disclose the documents that it claims defendants stole from Tesla.” (Order, page 5, ¶ 3.) The motion was otherwise denied without prejudice to a further showing of good cause.

D. Discussion of the Present Motion and Opposition.

Defendants contend that equitable estoppel does not apply and Tesla has not established the defense. The opposition further asserts that Tesla rejected the offer to compromise provided by defendants. Finally, the highly objectionable discovery requests further requires dismissing this motion.

Defendants also offer three unpublished cases in support of the opposition to the motion. Plaintiffs in their reply papers have cited two unpublished cases. This Court will ask all counsel why unpublished cases and Superior Court law and motion orders are being cited as authority. (See Schmier v. Supreme Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 703, California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115 — Citation of Opinions.[3])

This Court believes that the best resolution for this important and interesting matter is as follows:

First, if plaintiff has not already done so, plaintiff is to identify and produce copies of all documents it contends that were misappropriated by the defendants within 30 days of the filing and service of this Order.

Second, within 30 days after the foregoing disclosure, defendants are to provide code compliant responses to the discovery requests in question. This Court expects that plaintiff is of a mind that a reasonable number of extensions will be granted.

IV. Tentative Ruling and Hearing.

The Tentative Ruling was duly posted.

V. Case Management.

On 12 January 2022 at 1:30 PM, the defense has calendared a motion in front of Judge Lucas to declare this matter to be determined by the Complex Litigation Court.

On 13 January 2022 at 9:00 AM in this Department, two motions to seal records have been set.

A Further Case Management Conference is set in this department on 15 February 2022 at 10:00 AM.

VI. Conclusion and Order.

First, if plaintiff has not already done so, plaintiff is to identify and produce copies of all documents it contends that were misappropriated by the defendants within 30 days of the filing and service of this Order.

Second, within 30 days after the foregoing disclosure, defendants are to provide code compliant responses to the discovery requests in question. This Court expects that plaintiff is of a mind that a reasonable number of extensions will be granted.

|____________________________________ |_________________________________________________________ |

|DATED: |HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN |

| |Judge of the Superior Court |

| |County of Santa Clara |

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 5

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 6

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 7

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 8

- oo0oo –

Calendar Line 9

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 10

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 11

|SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA | |

|COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA | |

| | |

|DEPARTMENT 20 | |

| | |

|161 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 | |

|408.882.2320 · 408.882.2296 (fax) | |

|smanoukian@ | |

| | |

| |(For Clerk's Use Only) |

|CASE No.: |21CV380664 |City of Milpitas v. Rajeev Kumar Madnawat |

|DATE: 14 December 2021 |TIME: 9:00 am |LINE NUMBER: 11 |

|This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 20 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. |

|Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 20 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM on 13 December 2021. Please |

|specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and Counsel. |

|---oooOooo--- |

|Order On Petition for Disposition of Firearms |

|(continued from 07 September 2021). |

I. Statement of Facts.

Loren Wutzke, a police officer for the City of Milpitas, declares that on 15 February 2021 at 9:50 PM, he he responded to a call at a residence on a domestic disturbance call. The female reported that her husband, respondent here, through a television and chair at her but did not hit her. She reported that he was intoxicated. Respondent could be heard yelling in the background of the call.

En route to the resident, the officer was informed that he had to firearms registered to him. Respondent was heard in the background stating that the reporting party hit him with a hammer.

On arrival at the house, the reporting party informed the officer that her husband was depressed and drinking all day, saying that he was going to destroy himself and destroy everything. She reported that earlier in the day he sent text messages to her and the children to the effect that his life was ruined, he was a drunk, and didn’t know why he was sending those messages.

Respondent spontaneously stated that the reporting party was the one throwing things around the house, that she hit him with a rubber mallet, and then called 911 to get him arrested. Officers were told that respondent had to firearms in the house that were locked. The officers confiscated a Ruger 10/22 rifle and a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver. Respondent was taken to Valley Medical Center for a psychiatric evaluation pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code, § 5150.

Further investigation revealed that respondent’s daughter called and stated her father was sending disturbing text messages. She further said that he was unstable and had firearms in the house.

The officer believes that the presence of firearms in his residence gives respondent the means to act on any future threats or thoughts of harming self or others and therefore poses a danger to respondent and others. For those reasons the declarant believes that the petition is appropriate and the confiscated weapon should not be returned to him because doing so would likely result in endangering respondent or others.

In his “Response” filed on 16 August 2021, Respondent declares that a warrant was needed for seizure of his firearms. He further states that the petition is based on hearsay. The gist of his argument is that there was no domestic violence, that the firearms were secured and stored, and that there is no medical documentation that he is a threat to anybody. He finally takes personal issue with Mr. Díaz, the contract City Attorney on this matter, alleging that he has made billions from the taxpayers of Milpitas. He also raises issue about a political vendetta against them by corrupt politicians in the city of Milpitas going back to 2007.

The last hearing on this matter was on 07 September 2021. At that time, the tentative ruling was duly posted. Ms. Hickey appeared for the petitioner along with a City of Milpitas police officer. Mr. Madnawat emailed this Court on the morning of 6 September 2021 but did not otherwise appear.

At the request of petitioner, the Court continued this matter to 14 December 2021 at 9:00 AM in this Department. Ms. Hickey further said that she would consult respondent about obtaining pertinent medical records for this Court’s review at the next hearing.

II. Motion on Petition for Disposition of Firearms.

The procedures for this court to follow are set forth in Penal Code, §§ 18400-18410.

Petitioner seeks forfeiture of the firearms. Respondent wants his firearms returned to him. He also seeks attorneys fees pursuant to Penal Code, § 18410(c).

III. Analysis.

Penal Code, § 18410(c) states: “unless it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the return of the firearm or other deadly weapon would result in endangering the victim or the person reporting the assault or threat, the court shall order the return of the firearms or other deadly weapon and shall award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.”

This Court is tasked with determining whether petitioner has shown proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the return of the firearms would endanger either respondent or anyone else.

This Court has paid attention to the evidence presented and this Court’s mindset as to who was the aggressor is at equipoise.

“A statute must be construed in the context of the entire statutory system of which it is a part, in order to achieve harmony among the parts.” (People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1009.)

Therefore, this Court will determine whether the seizure of the weapons by the police was reasonable.

Section 1 of article I of the California Constitution, as amended by the 1972 "privacy initiative," provides: "all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are . . . pursuing  [**123]  and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." The state's privacy guarantee operates separately and in addition to the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. For our purposes, however, we need not distinguish between the state and federal constitutional guarantees. (See In re William G. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 550, 557, fn.4.)

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all searches and seizures, but rather only those that are "unreasonable." Even without the presence of consent by the person or a warrant based upon probable cause, a search or seizure may be found to be reasonable "if the exigencies of the circumstances demand it or some other recognized exception to the warrant requirement is present. [Citations.]" (United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 at p. 701 (1983).)

This Court believes that under the circumstances, the police acted reasonably in this matter.

This Court views this matter as someone having a “bad day” and that there is a serious question as to whether respondent is a reasonable threat of harm to himself or others. The Court believes that a further hearing on this matter is indicated and would like to set a formal hearing on the petition.

By way of full disclosure, this Court will inform the parties that this Court remembers respondent as a student in the California Civil Procedure class taught by this Judge at Santa Clara University School of Law. The Court does not believe this relationship affects the ability of this Court to adjudicate this matter.

This Court believes that it needs to review pertinent medical records concerning the welfare of Petitioner before it can make further orders.

IV. Tentative Ruling and Hearing.

The tentative ruling in this matter was duly posted.

V. Case Management.

Deferred.

VI. Conclusion and Order.

The Court believes that a further hearing on this matter is indicated and would like to set a formal hearing on the petition.

|____________________________________ |_________________________________________________________ |

|DATED: |HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN |

| |Judge of the Superior Court |

| |County of Santa Clara |

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 12

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 13

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 14

|SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA | |

|COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA | |

| | |

|DEPARTMENT 20 | |

| | |

|161 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 | |

|408.882.2320 · 408.882.2296 (fax) | |

|smanoukian@ | |

| | |

| |(For Clerk's Use Only) |

|CASE No.: |21CV387052 |Petition of Santa Clara Valley Water District for Order Permitting Entry |

|DATE: 14 December 2021 |TIME: 9:00 am |LINE NUMBER: 14 |

|This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 20 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. |

|Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 20 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM on 13 December 2021. Please |

|specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and Counsel. |

|---oooOooo--- |

|Order on Petition of Santa Clara Valley Water District |

|For an Order Permitting Entry. |

I. Statement of Facts.

Plaintiff filed this petition on 8 September 2021.[4]

Respondent’s property is situated near the vicinity of Coyote Creek and the Coyote Flood Control Project Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 1245.010 et seq., petitioner seeks an order granting it the right to enter the property of respondent for the limited purpose of remediation of Anderson Dam to protect the public from the risk of dam failure due to seismic activity. Petitioner seeks to make assessments concerning:

(i) photographing site conditions,

(ii) topographical and other survey measurements,

(iii) biological (including arborist) assessment,

(iv) cultural and archaeological assessments,

(v) hazardous materials (Phase I and perhaps Phase II) assessment, and

(vi) geotechnical (including field borings) assessment.

Valley Water District seeks permission to enter 351,964 ft.² on a nonexclusive basis for a total of 16 days over a two-year period to conduct the foregoing activity.

Valley Water District has obtained an executed Permission to Enter from all but seven of the 50 affected properties. Printing of the petition allows it to access the property. Valley water District That will be required to deposit funds to guarantee payment of compensation to the owners for any damage to the property. There are no changes to property rights nor does it limit the compensation that responded might ultimately demand.

Valley Water District has hired Associated Right-Of-Way Service to determine the value of its entry on the property in question. A Mr. Ricards has determined the value of the impact to the owner of the property at $23,100.00.

Respondent opposes the petition because the petition does not describe the planned activities with sufficient particularity to enable this Court and respondent to determine whether such activities are reasonable and necessary and to enable the court to issue an appropriate order. Respondent believes that petitioner is effectively seeking carte blanche to enter the property and engage unspecified activities.

Respondent seeks specifics such as how many boreholes will be drilled, what size, what equipment will be used, whether there will be dust and noise and how the work would interfere with the tenant’s use of the property.

II. Motion for Entry of Property.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 1245.010 sets forth the general authority granted to public entities by the precondemnation entry and testing statutes. It provides: “Subject to requirements of this article, any person authorized to acquire property for a particular use by eminent domain may enter upon property to make photographs, studies, surveys, examinations, tests, soundings, borings, samplings, or appraisals or to engage in similar activities reasonably related to acquisition or use of the properly for that use.” (See Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 151, 175.[5])

In any case in which the property owner has not given written consent for the entry, the authorized entity can petition the Court for an order granting the right to enter the property. (See Code of Civil Procedure, § 1245.020.) When such an entity pursues a petition, the Court determines the schedule for giving notice and resolving the petition. (See Code of Civil Procedure, § 1245.030, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure, §1240.030 sets forth the procedure governing an order for entry. The section provides:

“(a) The person seeking to enter upon the property may petition the court for an order permitting the entry and shall give such prior notice to the owner of the property as the court determines is appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case.

(b) Upon such petition and after such notice has been given, the court shall determine the purpose for the entry, the nature and scope of the activities reasonably necessary to accomplish such purpose, and the probable amount of compensation to be paid to the owner of the property for the actual damage to the property and interference with its possession and use.

(c) After such determination, the court may issue its order permitting the entry. The order shallprescribe the purposefor the entry and the nature and scope of the activities to be undertaken and shall require the person seeking to enter to deposit with the court the probable amount of compensation.”

Adoption of a resolution of necessity by a public agency is a prerequisite to the exercise of eminent domain. (Code of Civil Procedure, §1240.040.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure, § 1245.060 addresses the property owner's right to recover damages. The section provides:

“(a) If the entry and activities upon property cause actual damage to or substantial interference with the possession or use of the property, whether or not a claim has been presented in compliance with [the California Tort Claims Act presentation requirements], the owner may recover for such damage or interference in a civil action or by application to the court under subdivision (c).

(b) The prevailing claimant in an action or proceeding under this section shall be awarded his costs and, if the court finds that any of the following occurred, his litigation expenses incurred in proceedings under this article:

(1) The entry was unlawful.

(2) The entry was lawful but the activities upon the property were abusive or lacking in due regard for the interests of the owner.

(3) There was a failure substantially to comply with the terms of an order made under Section 1245.030 or 1245.040.

(c) If funds are on deposit under this article, upon application of the owner, the court shall determine and award the amount the owner is entitled to recover under this section and shall order such amount paid out of the funds on deposit. If the funds on deposit are insufficient to pay the full amount of the award, the court shall enter judgment for the unpaid portion.

(d) Nothing in this section affects the availability of any other remedy the owner may have for the damaging of his property.”

III. Analysis.

Respondent asserts that the petition does not explain the particular use to which the property will be subject. Coyote Creek does not “but had to encroach on the property.” If the project entails building a flood wall, respondent believes it is unlikely that the flood wall would but and encroach on the property. The implication is therefore that Valley Water District is not contemplating any construction activities on the property. If this is the case, respondent would like an explanation why the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project and why the proposed activities are reasonably related to the acquisition or use of the property for that particular use.

Respondent also claims that the petitioner has not established that two years of access to the entire property would be necessary or reasonable.

This Court concludes that the concerns of respondent are not unreasonable. This Court will ask petitioner if it can provide additional details at the hearing on this motion.

Alternatively, this Court believes that a hearing to address the respective concerns of the parties may be necessary and in the best interests of the parties. This Court would be interested in the “best guesstimates” of the parties as to how long a hearing would take.

IV. Tentative Ruling and Hearing.

The Tentative Ruling was duly posted.

V. Case Management.

There are no future dates set on this matter.

VI. Conclusion and Order.

This Court believes that a hearing to address the respective concerns of the parties may be necessary and in the best interests of the parties.

|____________________________________ |_________________________________________________________ |

|DATED: |HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN |

| |Judge of the Superior Court |

| |County of Santa Clara |

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 15

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 16

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 17

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 18

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 19

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 20

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 21

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 22

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 23

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 24

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 25

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 26

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 27

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 28

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 29

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 30

---oooOooo---

-----------------------

[1] This Department intends to comply with the time requirements of the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act (Government Code, §§ 68600–68620). The California Rules of Court state that the goal of each trial court should be to manage limited and unlimited civil cases from filing so that 100 percent are disposed of within 24 months. (Ca. St. Civil Rules of Court, Rule 3.714(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2)(C).

[2] In fact, monetary sanctions may be imposed against a deponent party even if his or her failure to appear was entirely inadvertent. (Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2025.450(a), (c)1. It is enough that the deponent “fails to appear for examination.” (Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2006) ¶ 8:827; Leko v. Cornerstone Building Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1124 [“Here, the failure to appear was due to oversight and opposing counsel expressed a willingness to reschedule the depositions at a mutually convenient date.”].)

[3] Unpublished California cases are NOT citable EXCEPT when the opinion is relevant:

• under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or

• to a criminal or disciplinary action because it states reasons for a decision affecting the same defendant or respondent in another such action.

Citing unpublished federal opinions does not violate this Rule. (Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077, 1096; Hall v. Goodwill Industries (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 718, 728 (fn.2).)

[4] This Department intends to comply with the time requirements of the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act (Government Code, §§ 68600–68620). The California Rules of Court state that the goal of each trial court should be to manage limited and unlimited civil cases from filing so that 100 percent are disposed of within 24 months. (Ca. St. Civil Rules of Court, Rule 3.714(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2)(C).

[5] “Although section 1245.030 does not explicitly require the trial court to hold a hearing and afford the property owner an opportunity to present evidence relevant to the factors that the court is required to consider under section 1245.030, we conclude a hearing and an opportunity to be heard on a public entity's entry petition is clearly contemplated by and implicit in the statutory scheme. The notice to the property owner required by section 1245.030 would make little sense if the owner had no ability to respond to the notice and make its views known prior to the issuance of any order, and the very next section—section 1245.040—explicitly provides that the court may modify any order entered under section 1245.030 “after notice and hearing” (§ 1245.040, subd. (a), italics added). In the present case, as we have seen, the trial court held extensive hearings on the Department's petition and afforded the property owners the opportunity to participate in the hearings. We conclude the trial court did not err in so doing. (Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 151, 175-176.)

-----------------------

TENTATIVE RULING PROTOCOL

Law & Motion matters are heard every Tuesday and Thursday at 9:00 a.m. Tentative rulings will be accessible on after 2:00 p.m. on the court date preceding the scheduled hearing at:

https: /wvvw.online services/tentatives/tentative rulings_Dept20.shtml

Tentative rulings will become Orders of the Court unless contested. See California Rules of Court, rules 3.1308(a)(l) and 3.1312.

To arrange an appearance to contest a tentative ruling, notify the Court at (408) 808.6856 before 4:00 PM on the court dates before the hearing. You may make your notification to the Court by leaving a message when prompted to do so at the end of the recorded greeting. When you leave your message, state only the case number, case name, the name of the attorney, telephone number, and a brief statement as to the portion of the tentative ruling to which objection is taken. Messages should be brief and notify the portion of the ruling to which objection is taken. Please try to keep the message under 30 seconds.

You must also notify opposing counsel. You do not need to call or leave a message if you are not contesting the tentative ruling.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download