SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Department 13, Honorable James L. Stoelker, Presiding
for
Department 2, Honorable Patricia M. Lucas
Bob Gutierrez, Courtroom Clerk
Aura Clendenen, Court Reporter
191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: 408. 882.2240
To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M.
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS
DATE: February 24, 2015 TIME: 9:00 a.m.
The prevailing party must prepare an order in compliance with Rule of Court 3.1312.
(SEE RULE OF COURT 3.1312)
LINE #
CASE #
CASE TITLE
RULING
LINE 1
109CV135943 Pacific Posal Credit Union Return on Bench Warrant on Order of
v Lopez
Examination
LINE 2
1113CV253982 Fidelity National Title v
Diversified Marketing
Group
Off Calendar
LINE 3
114CV270976 Hassan v Santa Clara
County Law Library
Click on line 3 for ruling
LINE 4
114CV261386 Technology Credit Union No opposition is filed. Plaintiff’s Motion for
v Magtoto
Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
LINE 5
113CV246033 Selck v Tran
Continued to 3/10/15 by stipulation and order
LINE 6
112CV226029 Nguyen v Ginsburg
No opposition is filed. Defendant’s Motion
to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories
and Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall serve code-compliant verified
responses to Form Interrogatories and Special
Interrogatories without objections within 20
calendars days. In addition, plaintiff and his
counsel shall pay defendant as sanctions the
amount of $390.00 within 20 calendar days.
LINE 7
113CV240037 Thunderbolt Holdings v
Ohadi
No opposition is filed. Plaintiff’s Motion for
Substitution of Party Plaintiff is GRANTED.
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Department 13, Honorable James L. Stoelker, Presiding
for
Department 2, Honorable Patricia M. Lucas
Bob Gutierrez, Courtroom Clerk
Aura Clendenen, Court Reporter
191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: 408. 882.2240
To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M.
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS
LINE 8
114CV262862 Specialized Bicycle
Components v Palmer
Sports Group
Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Stipulated
Judgment and to Compel Arbitration is
DENIED.
Procedurally, the Petition to Open Case and
to Enter Judgment was filed 3/26/14.
Defendant responded with a Motion to
Compel Arbitration and to Stay Action filed
on April 3, 2014. Before the Motion to
Compel Arbitration could be heard, the Court
entered judgment on the Stipulated Judgment
on April 15, 2014. On that same day,
defendant filed opposition to entry of the
stipulated judgment asserting that the purpose
of the opposition was to “avoid unnecessary
law and motion practice should the Court
inadvertently enter the requested stipulated
judgment before Defendant’s motion to
compel arbitration could be heard.”
However, once defendant discovered that the
stipulated judgment had been entered, no
further challenge to the stipulated judgment
was made until this motion filed 1/26/2015.
Defendant argues extensively that the merits
of the defense to the underlying case justify
setting aside judgment. However, the
threshold issue prior to reaching the merits is
whether there are grounds to set aside the
judgment under section 473. The court finds
insufficient evidence to indicate that the
stipulated judgment was entered as the result
of fraud, mistake, surprise or excusable
neglect. Defendant was aware of the request
to enter stipulated judgment and immediately
responded to it. Further, this court finds no
reasonable justification for filing this motion
more than 6 months after entry of the
judgment. The cost of filing the motion is
not reasonable justification for failing to do
so.
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Department 13, Honorable James L. Stoelker, Presiding
for
Department 2, Honorable Patricia M. Lucas
Bob Gutierrez, Courtroom Clerk
Aura Clendenen, Court Reporter
191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: 408. 882.2240
To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M.
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS
LINE 9
114CV272045 Jordan v Things
Remembered, Inc.
Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings is
GRANTED. The court, in its discretion,
stays the proceedings on the grounds that the
underlying issues to be tried, i.e. alleged
wage and hour violations, are the same in this
action and the class action now pending in
the federal court. While the parties plaintiff
are not identical, they are substantially so –
non-exempt hourly paid employees of the
same employer. The relief requested is
significantly different in this PAGA action.
However, the evidentiary findings necessary
to arrive at the result in each action are
identical. Plaintiff concedes that the findings
in each case will not be in conflict unless
there is a defense verdict in one and
plaintiff’s verdict in the other. However, this
is not an impossible result and will give rise
to inconsistent judgments.
LINE 10
113CV247406 Kleidman v Shah
Continued to 3/12/15 per stipulation and
order
LINE 11
113CV252429 Doe 9 v Child
Development, Inc.
Continued to 2/26/15
LINE 12
113CV252661 Sterling v Arete Office
Supplies
Continued to 3/3/15
LINE 13
114CV264298 Doe v Orchard School
District
Off Calendar
LINE 14
114CV266699 F. Serios v J. Serios
Off Calendar
LINE 15
114CV271168 Wang v Sil-Vest LLC
Off Calendar
LINE 16
113CV252661 Sterling v Arete Office
Supplies
Specially set by stipulation and order. Notice
of Settlement filed 2/18/15. Off calendar.
LINE 17
LINE 18
LINE 19
LINE 20
LINE 21
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Department 13, Honorable James L. Stoelker, Presiding
for
Department 2, Honorable Patricia M. Lucas
Bob Gutierrez, Courtroom Clerk
Aura Clendenen, Court Reporter
191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: 408. 882.2240
To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M.
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS
LINE 22
LINE 23
LINE 24
LINE 25
LINE 26
LINE 27
LINE 28
LINE 29
LINE 30
LINE 31
LINE 32
LINE 33
LINE 34
LINE 35
LINE 36
LINE 37
LINE 38
LINE 39
LINE 40
Calendar line 1
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 2
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 3
Case Name: ShaRon Hassan v. Santa Clara County Law Library
Case No.:
1-14-CV-270976
Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint by Defendant Santa Clara County Law Library; Motion
to Amend Complaint by Plaintiff ShaRon Hassan
On September 23, 2014, plaintiff ShaRon Hassan (“Hassan”) filed a Judicial Council
form complaint against defendant Santa Clara County Law Library (“Law Library”) purportedly
asserting claims for general negligence and premises liability, but without attaching said form
causes of action or setting forth any factual allegations.
On January 13, 2015, defendant Law Library filed one of the two motions now before the
court, a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint.
On February 2, 2015, plaintiff filed the second motion now before the court, a motion to
amend complaint.
I.
Defendant Law Library’s demurrer to the complaint is SUSTAINED.
A.
Request for judicial notice.
In support of and in reply to its demurrer, defendant Law Library requests judicial notice
of the complaint, plaintiff’s first amended complaint and plaintiff’s second amended complaint
filed in case number 1-14-CV-270403. Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d) states that the
court may take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of any court of this state.” This section of the statute
has been interpreted to mean that the trial court may take judicial notice of the existence of the
court’s own records. Evidence Code section 452 and 453 permit the trial court to “take judicial
notice of the existence of judicial opinions and court documents, along with the truth of the
results reached—in the documents such as orders, statements of decision, and judgments—but
[the court] cannot take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions or court
files, including pleadings, affidavits, testimony, or statements of fact.” (People v. Woodell (1998)
17 Cal.4th 448, 455.) Accordingly, defendant Law Library’s request for judicial notice in support
of demurrer is GRANTED. To the extent the request for judicial notice is granted, the court takes
judicial notice of the existence of the documents, not necessarily the truth of any matters asserted
therein.
B.
Failure to state a cause of action.
Defendant Law Library demurs on the ground that the pleading does not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action [Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd. (e)] for either general
negligence or premises liability.
In opposition, plaintiff offers no substantive legal argument and instead states she
intends/ intended to file a first amended complaint.
Accordingly, defendant Law Library’s demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the
pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action [Code Civ. Proc., §430.10,
subd. (e)] for either general negligence or premises liability is SUSTAINED with 10 days’ leave
to amend.
Defendant will have an opportunity to challenge plaintiff’s amended pleading.
II.
Plaintiff Hassan’s motion to amend complaint is MOOT.
In view of the court’s ruling above, plaintiff Hassan’s motion to amend complaint is
deemed MOOT.
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 4
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 5
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 6
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 7
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 8
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 9
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 10
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 11
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 12
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 13
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 14
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 15
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 16
- oo0oo --
Calendar line 17
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 18
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 19
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 20
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 21
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 22
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 23
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 24
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 25
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 26
-
oo0oo –
Calendar line 27
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 28
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 29
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 30
-
oo0oo –
Calendar line 31
-
oo0oo –
Calendar line 32
-
oo0oo –
Calendar line 33
-
oo0oo –
Calendar line 34
-
oo0oo –
Calendar line 35
-
oo0oo -
Calendar line 36
-
oo0oo -
Calendar line 37
-
oo0oo -
Calendar line 38
-
oo0oo -
Calendar line 39
-
oo0oo -
Calendar line 40
-
oo0oo -