Superior Court, State of California



DATE: Tuesday, 16 November 2021

TIME: 9:00 A.M.

This Department prefers that litigants use Zoom for Law and Motion and for Case Management Calendars.

CourtCall is also acceptable.

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

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

|NKNFBpSjlEam5xUT09 |Meeting ID: 961 4442 7712 | |

|Meeting ID: 961 4442 7712 | | |

|Password: 017350 | | |

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.

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

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.

In light of COVID-19-related health concerns and due to the Order of the Public Health Department, Department 20 has resumed Law & Motion calendars but with safe-distancing protocols. Please check this tentative rulings page before making any appearance.

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.

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).

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 matters which require 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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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).

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.

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

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

|LINE 1 |20CV369597 |On Deck Capital, Inc. v. Pro-Optics Eyewear |Order of Examination of Linh Lai As President of Pro-Optics Eyewear |

| | |Corporation |Corporation DBA Site For Sore Eyes |

| | | |The file does not contain a proof of service upon the judgment |

| | | |creditor. The parties should use the Tentative Ruling Protocol to |

| | | |advise the court how they wish to proceed. |

| | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 2 |20CV361466 |LWG Construction, Inc. v. Joseph Schumaker, Schumaker |Motion of defendants Joseph Schumaker and Schumaker Consulting Group |

| | |Consulting Group, Foodspace, Foodspace+Co., SCG |For a Protective Order. |

| | |Foospace |The |

| | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 3 |20CV373692 |Jonte Price v. John Olmstead |Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Defendant to Provide Responses to Form |

| | | |Interrogatories (Set 1) and Request for Monetary Sanctions. |

| | | |The Court will GRANT the motions to compel responses/verifications, |

| | | |deems the matter to be MOOT, and DENY the request for sanctions on the|

| | | |grounds that the notice of motion did not comply with Code of Civil |

| | | |Procedure, §§ 2023.010-2023.040. |

| | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 4 |20CV373692 |Jonte Price v. John Olmstead |Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Defendant to Provide Responses to |

| | | |Requests for Admissions (Set 1) and Request for Monetary Sanctions. |

| | | |SEE LINE#3. |

|LINE 5 |18CV333857 |Florentino Flores v. Deutsche Bank National Trust |Motion of Jessica Galletta, Esq. To Withdraw As Attorney for Plaintiff|

| | |Company |Florentino Flores. |

| | | |The application is GRANTED and will take effect upon the filing of a |

| | | |proof of service showing the next court date to be a Case Management |

| | | |Conference on 3 May 2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 20. As an |

| | | |accommodation to counsel, this Court will modify the proposed order to|

| | | |reflect the next court date. |

| | | |NO FORMAL TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 6 |21CV379921 |Kent Taylor v. Aifeng Su, |Motion of Plaintiff for an Order for Payment of Costs and Reasonable |

| | | |Expenses Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 128.7(b)(1). |

| | | |The motion of Plaintiff for an Order for Payment of Costs and |

| | | |Reasonable Expenses Pursuant to Code Of Civil Procedure, § 128.7(b)(1)|

| | | |is DENIED. |

| | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 7 |2013-1-CV-239166 |Pentech Funding LLC v. Paramount Limousine Services, |Motion of Ronald L. Gruzen, Esq. to Withdraw As Counsel for ASG WVJP |

| | |Et Al. |2017, LP |

| | | |Counsel should use the Tentative Ruling Protocol to advise this Court |

| | | |how they wish to proceed as well as update the court on the status of |

| | | |any pending bankruptcy petition. |

| | | |The Court has executed a stipulation to continue the motion of |

| | | |defendant to vacate judgment, now set to be heard on 16 December 2021 |

| | | |at 9:00 AM with a Case Management Conference to be heard at 10:00 AM |

| | | |on the same date, both appearances in Department 20. |

| | | |NO FORMAL TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 8 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 9 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 10 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 11 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 12 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 13 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 14 | | |SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. |

|LINE 15 | | |SEE ATTACHED 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

|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.: |20CV369597 |On Deck Capital, Inc. v. Pro-Optics Eyewear Corporation |

|DATE: 16 November 2021 |TIME: 9:00 am |LINE NUMBER: 1 |

|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 15 November 2021. Please |

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

|---oooOooo--- |

|Order of Examination of Linh Lai |

|as President of Pro-Optics Eyewear Corporation |

|DBA Site For Sore Eyes. |

I. Statement of Facts.

In December 2020, the parties stipulated to entry of judgment against defendant/judgment debtor in the amount of $90,367.31 plus 10% annual interest from 13 August 2019 through the date of the filing of the stipulation, plus court costs of $945.00 and attorneys fees of $1,500.00, less credit for any payments made prior to the filing of the stipulation.

On 15 July 2021, defendants defaulted on the agreed-upon payment schedule. Notice of default was transmitted to defense counsel on 2 August 2021 as well as to the judgment debtor.

The default was not cured and plaintiff entered judgment on 17 September 21.

Plaintiff filed the application for the Order of Examination of Linh Lai As President of Pro-Optics Eyewear Corporation DBA Site For Sore Eyes on 12 October 2021. Writs of execution were issued on 18 October 2021.

II. Conclusion and Order.

The file does not contain a proof of service upon the judgment debtor.

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.

III. Tentative Ruling and Hearing.

The tentative ruling was duly posted.

IV. Order.

The parties should use the Tentative Ruling Protocol to advise the Court on how they wish to proceed.

|____________________________________ |_________________________________________________________ |

|DATED: |HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN |

| |Judge of the Superior Court |

| |County of Santa Clara |

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 2

- 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.: |20CV373692 |Jonte Price v. John Olmstead |

|DATE: 16 November 2021 |TIME: 9:00 am |LINE NUMBER: 3, 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 15 November 2021. Please |

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

|---oooOooo--- |

|Order on Motions of Plaintiff to Compel Defendant to Provide Responses to: |

|Form Interrogatories (Set 1), Requests for Admissions (Set 1) |

|and Request for Monetary Sanctions. |

I. Statement of Facts.

Plaintiff filed this complaint on 17 November 2020.[1] Plaintiff seeks damages as a result of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 7 July 2019. The complaint does not set forth the details of the accident. Apparently plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries arising from a rear and automobile accident in a fast food drive-through.

Plaintiff claims $16,054.41.00 in medical specials and $496.00 in lost wages to date.

Defendant answered the complaint on 4 January 2021.

II. Motion To Compel Discovery Responses.

On 11 January 2021, plaintiff propounded upon defendant by email form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admissions, and request for production of documents (Sets 1).

On 2 March 2021, defendant served unverified discovery responses via email.

Between 10 March 2021 and 5 July 2021, the parties exchanged in communications concerning the required verifications for the discovery responses. On that last date, plaintiffs counsel sent to defense counsel and email indicating that if the verifications were not received by 16 July, plaintiff would file a “motion to compel.” Plaintiff indicated he would be seeking $685.00 in monetary sanctions.

The motions were filed and served on 26 August 2021.

In response, defendant states that the motions are moot because responses were served on 2 March 2021 and the verifications were served on 1 October 2021. Defendant declares that the delay in providing verifications to the discovery responses was due to defendant undergoing an amputation during the Covid pandemic and being isolated in a rehabilitation facility without access to mail or a computer and limited access to his personal telephone.

Defendant also contends that the motions were filed and served upon him without proper notice of a date or time for hearing of the separate motions.

III. Analysis.

The purpose of the Civil Discovery Act was to do away with the sporting theory of litigation, to take the game element out of trial preparation, and eliminate surprise at trial by enabling the parties to obtain the evidence necessary to evaluate and solve their disputes beforehand.

Each of these purposes was generally expressed in the case of Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S., which interpreted the federal rules of discovery in 1947, and of which the California Legislature is deemed to have been cognizant when adopting those rules. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Ca|.2d 355, 376.)[2]

The burden to enforce discovery is on the propounding party, otherwise no penalty attaches to the responding failures inadequate responses. (Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 334).)

It does not take a learned treatise to explain that if a party fails to respond at all or responds with objections or incomplete answers, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers or further answers.

The Civil Discovery Act requires that responses to discovery be signed under oath by the party to whom the discovery is directed. (See Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2030.250(a); 2031.250(a); 2033.240(a).) Unverified responses to are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

It follows that if no responses have been made to interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admissions, the meet and confer rule "does not come into play, and compliance therewith is not a prerequisite to a motion to compel answers." (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404; McElhaney v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 285, 289: “Although no meet and confer is required for this motion, the parties are always encouraged to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order.”)

Several things catch the attention of this Court.

First, counsel for plaintiff and defendant engaged in a suitable and very appropriate meet and confer prior to the filing of the motions.

Second, defendant takes issue with the notice of the motion. The fact that an opposing party has actual knowledge of a pending court proceeding does not excuse the moving party from the requirement of giving the written notice required by statute. (County of Santa Clara vs. Perry (1998) 18 Cal.4th 435, 442.)

The process used by this court for filing and calendaring motions has been a moving target and about the time that the incident motions were filed, the court started accepting filings and would notify counsel when dates for hearings were set. This required counsel for the moving parties to engage in the extra effort to send out a second notice of the date set for the motion. It seems that counsel for plaintiffs failed to send the second notice with the actual hearing date.

As the court stated in Tate v. Superior Court (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 925, 930: “It is well settled that the appearance of a party at the hearing of a motion and his or her opposition to the motion on its merits is a waiver of any defects or irregularities in the notice of motion.” This rule applies even when no notice was given at all. Accordingly, a party who appears and contests a motion in the court below cannot object on appeal or by seeking extraordinary relief in the appellate court that he had no notice of the motion or that the notice was insufficient or defective. (See Estate of Pailhe (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 658, 660 661.)

Therefore, as this Court understands the situation, if defense counsel did not appear at the hearing, the Court would not be able to rule on the motions because of the failure of counsel for plaintiff to send formal notice to defense counsel.

The declaration of defense counsel, in ¶ 5, sets forth his investigation of the conundrum but it would have been nice to know when this occurred and when defense counsel actually learned of these motions…..

Third, the Court understands that defendant himself was grievously ill as set forth in ¶ 11 of his attorney’s declaration. A little more factual and historical detail would have been useful. This Court would have liked to have known whether the defendant was in a coma, otherwise alert, where the defendant was located, and why defense counsel could not make personal visits to see his client.

It would be easy to deny the motions based on the lack of proper notice but that would not move the matter to a peaceful resolution. Therefore, the Court will GRANT the motions to compel responses/verifications, deems the matter to be MOOT, and DENY the request for sanctions on the grounds that the notice of motion did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2023.010-2023.040.

IV. Tentative Ruling and Hearing.

The Tentative Ruling was duly posted.

V. Case Management.

There are two similar motions set for this coming Thursday on 16 November 2021 at 9:00 AM in this Department. This Court will likely come to the same conclusion. Counsel should meet and confer and advise the court of their intentions.

VI. Conclusion and Order.

The Court will GRANT the motions to compel responses/verifications, deems the matter to be MOOT, and DENY the request for sanctions on the grounds that the notice of motion did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2023.010-2023.040.

|____________________________________ |_________________________________________________________ |

|DATED: |HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN |

| |Judge of the Superior Court |

| |County of Santa Clara |

- oo0oo –

Calendar Line 4

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 5

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 6

|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.: |21CV379921 |Kent Taylor v. AifengbSu, |

|DATE: 16 November 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 15 November 2021. Please |

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

|---oooOooo--- |

|Order on Motion of Plaintiff for an Order for Payment of Costs |

|and Reasonable Expenses Pursuant to |

|Code Of Civil Procedure, Section 128.7(b)(1). |

I. Statement of Facts.

Plaintiff filed this verified complaint for property damage on 16 April 2021.[3] the claim arises out of a three car motor vehicle accident which occurred on 20 December 2018 on the 3000 block of Alma Street in Palo Alto. As this Court understands the complaint, defendant Su was entering Alma Street from westbound El Carmelo Avenue to turn left (onto northbound Alma?). The Su vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by defendants Katz. The Su vehicle then spun around and collided with plaintiff’s vehicle.

Plaintiff alleges causes of action for a violation of Civil Code, § 3333 amd Code of Civil Procedure, § 338; and for negligent cause of property damage.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on 14 June 2021 to correct a pleading error. He added “AAA Insurance Company” as a defendant.

Plaintiff commenced default proceedings against both defendant Su and AAA Insurance Company. These parties have set demurrers to the complaint and motions to vacate that entry of default on 16 December 2021 at 9:00 AM in Department 20.

II. Motion of Plaintiff for an Order of Payment of Costs and Reasonable Expenses.

Plaintiff filed this motion on 18 October 2021. The motion is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 128.7(b)(1.) He claims that the defendant’s attorney engaged in bad faith and intended to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation by engaging in bad faith. He further claims that the notice of motion is defective.

III. Analysis.

The motion is is untimely because it was filed on 18 October 2021 and mailed to the defendants on 20 October 2021. The 16th Court day before the hearing was 22 October. With the service by mail, an additional five calendar days required that the service be done no later than 15 October 2021.

Second, the motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure, § 128.7 as pointed out in the opposition papers, the statute provides for a “safe “harbor”” during which time the responding party was permitted 21 days to withdraw or correct the offending document. Here, plaintiff served and filed the motion allowing only two days.

Finally, California law does not recognize a negligence cause of action by a plaintiff against an insurance company in connection with its investigation of any insurance claim. That cause of action was abrogated by the state Supreme Court which decided that an injured claimant has a right of recovery only upon proof that the insured was actually liable to the third party claimant. If the insured is not liable for the claimant's injury, the claimant has no right to damages from the insured, and the claimant cannot be permitted to recover for "unfair conduct" by the insurer in refusing to settle an underlying unmeritorious claim. (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 308.)

The motion is DENIED.

IV. Tentative Ruling and Hearing.

The Tentative Ruling was duly posted.

V. Case Management.

The matter will be back in this Department on 16 December 2021 and 9:00 AM.

VI. Conclusion and Order.

The motion of Plaintiff for an Order for Payment of Costs and Reasonable Expenses Pursuant to Code Of Civil Procedure, § 128.7(b)(1) is DENIED.

|____________________________________ |_________________________________________________________ |

|DATED: |HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN |

| |Judge of the Superior Court |

| |County of Santa Clara |

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 7

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 8

- oo0oo –

Calendar Line 9

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 10

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 11

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 12

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 13

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 14

---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] Absent contrary precedent under state law, California courts have found federal decisions “persuasive” in interpreting similar provisions of the California Act. (See Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court of Merced County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 401; Nagle v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1465, 1468; Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 35, 42-43; Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) § 8:19, p. 8A-10.)

[3] 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).

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

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