|
Tentative Ruling Announcement
Monday, November 23, 2009
If the Tentative Ruling in your case is satisfactory, you need not appear at the scheduled time, the ruling becomes final, and the prevailing party prepares the order.
However, if you are not satisfied with the Tentative Ruling, and wish to appear and argue the matter, YOU MUST NOTIFY the Clerk’s Office and opposing counsel of your intent before 4:00 p.m. TODAY. If a TELEPHONIC HEARING is requested per CCP §367.5, COURT CALL MUST be notified AND the Clerk’s Office MUST also be notified before 4:00 p.m. TODAY.
When doing so, you must indicate as to which issue(s) and/or motion(s) a hearing is being requested. If requesting a hearing for clarification of a tentative ruling, specify what matter(s) and/or issue(s) need clarification.
You may request a hearing by calling: (209) 530-3100 or (209) 530-3162, prior to 4:00 p.m. –OR- by e-mailing at civil.tentatives@stanct.org Email requests must be made prior to 4:00 p.m. AND confirmed by return e-mail. If you do not receive confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you MUST call (209) 530-3162 to request your hearing.
Please refer to Local Rule of Court 3.21(b) concerning Court reporter fees.
If a Hearing is Required or you have requested a Hearing for a Law and Motion Matter Scheduled in Department 21, 22, 23 or 24 in Modesto, please contact the Court Reporter Coordinator at (209) 530-3105 to request a reporter and determine availability. If a Staff Reporter is not available, you may need to provide your own.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge William A. Mayhew in Dept. #21:
**There are no tentative rulings scheduled for Department #21**
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Ann Q. Ameral in Dept. #22 at 8:30 a.m.:
642151 – WACHOVIA MORTGAGE VS. PINEDO, J – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication of Issues - DENIED. Upon a review of the moving papers and supporting evidence, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to establish their burden of a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The recent change in the law as provided in Civil Code §2923.5 requires the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary or authorized agent to satisfy additional due diligence steps before being authorized to file a notice of default and proceed with the foreclosure sale. Plaintiff’s evidence in support of the motion fails to include a showing of either compliance or excuse from compliance with this requirement. Also, Plaintiff is notified that its relief request seeks "all the relief prayed for in the complaint", which includes damages, yet it has presented no moving undisputed facts or evidence concerning damages. The evidence of such elements of the cause of action is inadequate and the burden of submitting evidence in dispute never shifts to Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication is denied.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Ann Q. Ameral in Dept. #22 at 10:00 a.m.:
636775 – CHASE BANK VS. SHOBLOM, D – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Default - GRANTED. Based on review of the moving and opposing papers, the Court finds that Defendant Shoblom is entitled to relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 473.5. The evidence is disputed both as to whether Defendant was residing in Modesto at the time of alleged service, and whether the person upon whom substitute service was made was in fact a competent member of Defendant’s household; therefore the Court finds the Defendant did not have actual notice of the complaint in time to defend. In that regard, the Default entered herein on April 27, 2009 and the Judgment filed herein on August 21, 2009 are both vacated and set aside; and the Writ of Execution issued September 18, 2009 is hereby recalled and vacated. Plaintiff is directed to personally serve a copy of the summons and complaint on Defendant Shoblom, or by mail by sending a Notice and Acknowledgment and Receipt under Code of Civil Procedure §415.30, at her residence address of 1158 Humboldt Street, Apt 17, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 and file proof of service thereon. Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within the time prescribed by statute.
The parties are advised this matter has been assigned to Commissioner Ann Q. Ameral in Department 22 for all purposes. Further, the case shall be set for Court trial on March 29, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 22.
644666 – CAPITAL ONE BANK VS. TORRES, M – Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Attorney Fees - GRANTED, as unopposed. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 438, the Plaintiff has established sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against Defendant Torres, while Defendant's answer fails to raise a denial as to any material allegations or to state any facts which constitute an affirmative defense to the claim for money damages. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant Torres in the principal amount of $ 3,708.11, plus interest at 3.90 % per annum from 10-13-07 to the date of entry of judgment, attorney fees in the sum of $520.81 and costs in the amount of $309.50.
644924 – CAPITAL ONE BANK VS. LARSEN, M – Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Attorney Fees - GRANTED, as unopposed. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 438, the Plaintiff has established sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against Defendant Larsen, while Defendant's answer fails to raise a denial as to any material allegations or to state any facts which constitute an affirmative defense to the claim for money damages. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant Larsen in the principal amount of $ 19,966.61, plus interest at 10% per annum from 11-20-08 to the date of entry of judgment, attorney fees in the sum of $1,648.33 and costs in the total amount of $434.50.
645095 – CAPITAL ONE BANK VS. RANEY, D – Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Attorney Fees - GRANTED, as unopposed. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 438, the Plaintiff has established sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against Defendants David and Josephine Raney, while Defendants' answer fails to raise a denial as to any material allegations or to state any facts which constitute an affirmative defense to the claim for money damages. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendants David and Josephine Raney in the principal amount of $ 7,528.03, plus interest at 10.90 % per annum from 06-10-09 to the date of entry of judgment, attorney fees in the sum of $902.80 and costs in the total amount of $389.50.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Hurl W. Johnson in Dept. #23:
**There are no tentative rulings scheduled for Department #23**
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Roger M. Beauchesne in Dept. #24:
**There are no tentative rulings scheduled for Department #24**
|