NOTICE
To request a hearing on any matter on this
calendar, you must call the Court at (916) 874-7848
(Department 54) by 4:30 p.m. today. Local rule 31(h). If
no call is made the tentative ruling becomes the order of
the court.
TENTATIVE RULINGS
Department 54
Superior Court of California
800 H Street
Joe S. Gray, Judge
Barbara Baldy, Clerk
R. Sanchez-Jacobo, Bailiff
February 8, 2000, 09:00
ITEM 1 97AS00242 ELWYN NIGH, ET AL VS. SUTTER COMMUNITY HOSPITALS, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: MOTION FOR HRNG AND DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
Filed By: FINCH, STEVEN H.
The motion for good faith determination is granted. No opposition to
the motion has been filed. The Court is aware that on December 21,
1999, this matter was ordered stayed pending contractual arbitration.
However, the stay does not appear to apply to the moving defendant,
therefore the Court has jurisdiction to hear this motion.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, nor is further notice of this ruling required.
***
ITEM 2 98AS02840 ANNA HODGE, ET AL VS. PARATRANSIT, INC., ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Filed By: COTTER, PAUL R.
Dropped.
***
ITEM 3 99AS00340 RUSSELL LEBARD VS. BEVERLY JOHNSTON, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: DEFAULT HEARING
Filed By: KINGSBURY, D. REID
Continued to 02/10/2000
Department 54
February 8, 2000
Page 2
_________________
***
ITEM 4 99AS00780 PATRICIA BJORNSEN, ET AL VS. JAMES T. HANSEN, M.D., ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Filed By: SAUL, JONATHAN A.
Continued to 02/22/2000
***
ITEM 5 99AS01768 FRANCES H. HARRIS, ET AL VS. DAVID E. BROWN
Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO STRIKE
Filed By: RICHARDS, THOMAS C.
In opposing the motion to strike his answer and enter his default, Mr.
Brown for the first time has notified both the Court and opposing
counsel that his address had been changed as of August, 1999. The file
does not contain any document or notice from Mr. Brown that his address
was not the address set forth in the answer he filed on June 4th, 1999.
It is Mr. Brown's duty and responsibility to keep the Court and opposing
counsel informed of his correct address at all times. The Court has
made many orders regarding this case since June 4th, 1999, and each time
has served notice on Mr. Brown at his address of record. For Mr. Brown
to now state he did not receive proper notice because he failed to keep
the Court and opposing counsel informed of his address is disingenuous
and spurious. Nor does it avail Mr. Brown to argue that at no time
since the complaint was filed has he refused to respond to any discovery
request by plaintiff. Since he did not communicate his address change
to plaintiff or the Court, defendant can not have any idea of what other
discovery may have been served on him at his old address. Furthermore,
Mr. Brown does not indicate whether he left a forwarding address memo
with the Post Office, so that his mail could be forwarded to his new
address. Mr. Brown's claim that he received other mail sent to his old
address, but failed to receive mail from the Court and opposing counsel
is not credible. Interestingly enough, defendant apparently received
the present motion, served at his old address, but claims to have not
received any of the other matters served at his old address.
In resolving discovery motions requesting sanctions for failure to
comply with discovery, the Court must make sure the "punishment fits the
crime". Plaintiffs should not be put in a better position than they
would have been if discovery had been responded to and had been
favorable to them. In this case, the Court cannot say what information
would have been derived from Mr. Brown's deposition, nor does the Court
know if other discovery was propounded to Mr. Brown which has gone
unresponded to since it was ostensibly mailed to the "old" address.
Under these circumstances, the Court cannot justify striking Mr. Brown's
answer and entering his default. However, the Court can make plaintiffs
whole. The motion to strike defendant's answer and enter his default is
denied. Defendant is ordered to pay plaintiffs' reasonable attorney
fees of $300 for having to bring the present motion; defendant is to pay
$300 for plaintiffs bringing the prior motion; defendant is ordered to
appear at his deposition, and produce documents, at the time and
location set by plaintiffs. Defendant is also ordered to file a
document with the Court attesting to his new address, and is ordered to
keep the Court and opposing Counsel apprised of any changes in his
address.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, nor is further notice of this ruling required.
Department 54
February 8, 2000
Page 3
_________________
***
ITEM 6 99AS02216 WILLIAM WALKER, ET AL VS. WORLD AND COMPANY, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO COMPEL
Filed By: NOTT, ROSS R.
Defendant's motions are granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve full
and complete answers, without objections, to defendant's Form
Interrogatories, Sets One, no later than Friday, February 18th, 2000.
The request for sanctions is denied as the motions are unopposed.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, nor is further notice of this ruling required.
***
ITEM 7 99AS02842 PATRICIA KEARNEY VS. JUDY BILLINGSLY
Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO COMPEL (2)
Filed By: KEARNEY JR, REX T.
Plaintiff's motion to compel a further answer to Interrogatory #17.1
regarding Requests for Admissions is granted and denied as follows:
#1: granted insofar as defendant must identify the several individuals
she received comments/complaints from regarding the potential
disruption; the motion is otherwise denied
#7: denied
#9: granted insofar as defendant should state the time and date of the
announcement
#11: denied
The request for sanctions is denied.
Defendant's motion to compel further answers to "Amended Special
Interrogatories to Plaintiff" is granted. During the meet and confer
process the interrogatories were modified to meet plaintiff's
objections. The amended special interrogatories should therefore have
been answered.
Defendant's request for sanctions is granted. Sanctions of $408 are
awarded to defendant from plaintiff.
Defendant's and plaintiff's responses to the discovery is to be served
no later than Friday, February 18th, 2000.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, nor is further notice of this ruling required.
Department 54
February 8, 2000
Page 4
_________________
***
ITEM 8 99AS04322 PAUL SHETRAWSKI VS. GLENN MUELLER, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: DEMURRER
Filed By: LOCKYER, BILL
Continued to 02/17/2000
***
ITEM 9 99AS05214 CRAIG S. YAMADA, M.D. ET AL VS. BELLA HOMES, INC, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Filed By: LEVY, JOEL S.
A preliminary injunction will issue prohibiting the Trustee's Sale
of the real property in issue until trial or further order of the Court.
Plaintiff shall file an undertaking in the amount of $10,000 and a
formal order consistent with the above ruling no later than February 10,
2000.
The temporary restraining order will remain in effect until the
preliminary injunction is executed.
No further continuances will be granted.
***
ITEM 10 99AS05266 SALLY PATTERSON VS. JEAN KANEKO, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: DEMURRER
Filed By: WRIGHT, J. FRED
The demurrer is dropped from the Court's calendar due to insufficient
service. The motion was served by mail, but only gave 21 days notice
instead of the required 26. Defective notice deprives the Court of
jurisdiction to rule on the motion. Lee v Placer Title Co. (1994) 28
C.A.4th 503, 509, 511.
Department 54
February 8, 2000
Page 5
_________________
***
ITEM 11 99AS05270 JOHN J HARRIS VS. HELEN ADELE HARRIS ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: DEMURRER
Filed By: GUMS, MICHAEL L.
The demurrer is sustained. This action is abated until the judgment in
the family law case is final.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, nor is further notice of this ruling required.
***
ITEM 12 99AS06094 MELVIN CONLEY VS. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO WITHDRAW ATTY OF REC
Filed By: SMITH, DAVID E.
The law firms' motion is granted on the following conditions: 1) the
law firm is to submit to department 54 an order for the Court's
signature which complies with the requirements of C.R.C. rule 376(d) 2)
the law firm will continue to be the attorney of record for plaintiff
until notice is given, and the order is served, as required by C.C.P.
285 and C.R.C. rule 376(d).
This minute order is effective immediately.
***
ITEM 13 99AM00256 CHRISTOPHER SPEARMAN VS. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL
Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO COMPEL
Filed By: ANWYL, JAMES T.
Defendant's motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve a full and
complete response, without objections, to defendant's Request for
Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff is also ordered to produce
the documents set forth in the response.
The response and documents are to be served and produced no later than
Friday, October 18th, 2000.
The request for sanctions is denied as the motion is unopposed.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order per C.R.C.
rule 391 is needed, nor is further notice of this ruling required.
Department 54
February 8, 2000
Page 6
_________________
***
ITEM 14 99AM00702 FIRST SELECT CORPORATION VS. RONALD P. MITCHELL
Nature of Proceeding: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Filed By: ADLER, BARRY
Plaintiff's motion is granted. Plaintiff has shown there are no triable
issues of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Defendant has not filed any opposition to the motion.
Plaintiff is to submit a judgment for the Court's signature no later
than Friday, February 11th, 2000. The judgment should be submitted to
department 54.
This minute order is effective immediately.
***
ITEM 15 99AM07740 VALENTINA TKACHUK VS. MARK GAY
Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO COMPEL
Filed By: HAKL, ANTHONY R. III
Continued to 02/16/2000
***
