&l2A NOTICE To request a hearing on any matter on this¨ calendar, you must call the Court at (916) 874-7848¨ (Department 54) by 4:00 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 Ninth Street, 3rd Floor THOMAS M. CECIL, Judge R. ROUSE, Clerk V. CARROLL, Bailiff April 6, 2005, 09:00 ITEM 1 01AS03044 MARIA STATHOS VS. SARKIS VELYAN, ET AL č Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Dismiss Filed By: SNOOK, TERRENCE T. Dropped. *** ITEM 2 03AS00500 BRIAN DENIKE VS. MARGARET CHERRIX Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel Filed By: KRESTOFF, JASON A. Continued by the Court to April 26, 2005 per minute order dated March 25, 2005. *** ITEM 3 03AS00720 HSG AUTH OF CTY OF SAC VS FRANKLIN VILLA ESTS UNIT #2 HO ASS Nature of Proceeding: Default Hearing Filed By: Plaintiff Housing Authority of Sacramento's application for default judgment is granted as prayed. The Court will sign the judgment submitted with the moving papers. a Department 54 April 6, 2005 Page 2 ______________ *** ITEM 4 04AS00782 FRANK A. FIALA, ET AL VS. KENNETH W. FORD, ET AL. Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL Filed By: SHERMAN, JASON M. Plaintiffs' motion to disqualify counsel is denied. The Court is not persuaded that Mr. Kuppenbender has undertaken concurrent adverse representation or breached his duty of loyalty in the context of this case. The Court also finds Truck Ins. Exchange v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1050 inapposite, as the disqualification on the ground of concurrent representation in a shareholders' derivative suit was not discussed. Further, the Court does not find that disqualification of Mr. Kuppenbender from representing defendant Ford in this action would further the interests of justice. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 391 or further notice is required. a *** ITEM 5 04AS02258 ROBERT MORRIS, ET AL VS. THERESA FRANCIS Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Withdraw Atty of Rec Filed By: JANSEN, MICHAEL W. The motion to withdraw is unopposed and is granted. The Court will sign the formal order submitted with the moving papers. a *** ITEM 6 04AS02766 ROBERT WHITAKER VS. CAPITAL CITY DRYWALL, INC. Nature of Proceeding: MOT FOR ISSUE/TERMINATING SANCTIONS/MONETARY SANCTIONS Filed By: WONG, JESSAVEL Y. Continued to 04/13/2005 Department 54 April 6, 2005 Page 3 ______________ *** ITEM 7 04AS02796 DEAN A. DOGLIETTO, ET AL VS. AT SYSTEMS, INC. Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel Filed By: CARVER, MICHAEL L. Plaintiffs' motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents (set one), nos. 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20; special interrogatories (set one) nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30; and form interrogatories (set one), no. 15.1 is granted. All objections are overruled, except attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Any documents withheld on the ground of privilege shall be appropriately identified in a privilege log. Defendant shall serve further responses, verified and without objection, and the privilege log, if any, no later than April 18, 2005. Plaintiffs have withdrawn their requests for sanctions. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 391 or further notice is required. a *** ITEM 8 04AS03750 DAVID JOHN REWARTS VS. EDGAWATER RANCH, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Withdraw Atty of Rec Filed By: HAVEN, RONALD R. The motion to withdraw is unopposed and is granted. Counsel failed to provide notice of the Court's tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 3.04(D). An attachment complying with Local Rule 3.04(D) should be served in addition to the required Judicial Council forms. Notice of the tentative ruling system is particularly important in attorney withdrawal motions because the client is not expected to know the Local Rules. Counsel shall immediately advise the client of the tentative ruling system, and shall be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event the client appears without following the procedures set forth in Rule 3.04(B). a Department 54 April 6, 2005 Page 4 ______________ *** ITEM 9 04AS05050 ZELYNA MONTALVO VS. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: PET TO COMP ARB/L. BUFORD Filed By: MURPHY, ELIZABETH H. The motion to compel arbitration is unopposed and is granted. This action is hereby stayed pending conclusion of arbitration proceedings. a *** ITEM 10 04AS05050 ZELYNA MONTALVO, VS. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, ET AL. Nature of Proceeding: PET TO COMP ARB/G. CRAWFORD Filed By: MURPHY, ELIZABETH H. The motion to compel arbitration is unopposed and is granted. This action is hereby stayed pending conclusion of arbitration proceedings. a *** ITEM 11 05AS00828 RAMON LUNA VS. NABIL SAMAAN Nature of Proceeding: Petition To Compel Arbitration Filed By: MELAMED, HOWARD R. Continued to 04/27/2005 *** ITEM 12 05AS00996 KAREN L. DA VIEGA VS. NASSER AZIMI, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Preliminary Injunction Filed By: DUNN, REGINALD A. This matter has been continued pursuant to the parties' request to April 11, 2005. Department 54 April 6, 2005 Page 5 ______________ *** ITEM 13 05CS00216 IN RE: VICTORIA GARIBAY Nature of Proceeding: Petition For Change Of Name Filed By: GARIBAY, VICTORIA The petition is unopposed and is granted on condition that proof of publication is filed in Dept. 54 prior to hearing. a *** ITEM 14 05CS00228 SUSAN DOLD VS. DAVID J. ORTIZ Nature of Proceeding: PET TO REMOVE CLAIM OF LIEN Filed By: BADER, DAVID J. The petition for release of lien is unopposed and is granted. Petitioner is directed to submit a judgment complying with Civil Code section 3154(f) for the Court's signature. a *** ITEM 15 00AM00838 REGINA MULLEN, ET AL VS. HELEN SCHWEISS Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Dismiss Filed By: SNOOK, TERRENCE T. Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CCP section 583.310 is denied. The Court agrees that it was not impossible, impracticable or futile to prosecute this action even during the six months that elapsed between the involuntary dismissal and plaintiffs' delayed effort to set the dismissal aside. However, as this action was submitted to arbitration more than four years and six months after the filing of the complaint, the automatic tolling provided by CCP section 1141.17(b) applies. In this case, this action was tolled 122 days (the time between the four years and six months date and the date the request for trial de novo was filed). Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores (1995) 10 Cal.4th 424 does not require a different result. In Howard, the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff is not entitled to post-arbitration tolling pursuant CCP section 1141.20 absent notice to the trial court of the date the five year statute would expire. As the Court noted, such tolling results "not from `submission to arbitration' under section 1141.17, but from the court's failure in the postarbitration period to fulfill its duty under section 1141.20" to set a trial date prior to the expiration of the five year statutory period. Id., 10 Cal.4th at 435. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 391 or further notice is required. Defendant shall submit a judgment of dismissal for the Court's signature. a Department 54 April 6, 2005 Page 6 ______________ *** ITEM 16 04AM00890 FIRESIDE THRIFT CO. VS. PATRICIA A. SMALER Nature of Proceeding: CLAIM OF EXEMPTION Filed By: KENNARD, ROBERT SCOTT The claim of exemption is granted except as to $125 per pay period, for a maximum of $250 per month. The Sheriff is directed to refund any funds withheld in excess of that amount to the judgment debtor forthwith. a *** ITEM 17 04AM10176 INDEMNITY CO. OF CALIFORNIA VS. ABDELFATAH AMIN ABOALI,ETAL Nature of Proceeding: MT TO DEPOSIT BY STKHLDR/MT FOR DISCHGE OF STKHLDR Filed By: SOSA, CARLOS E. Plaintiff's motion to deposit by stakeholder and motion for discharge of stakeholder is unopposed and is granted as prayed with the following exception. Although plaintiff requests attorney fees and costs in the amount of $2,000, the evidence before the Court supports an award of attorney fees in the amount of $604.50 and costs in the amount of $415.76, for a total award of $1,020.26. The Court will sign the formal order submitted with the moving papers with the amount of attorney fees and costs amended to $1,020.26. a ***