Preview
WEBB LEGAL GROUP
treet, Suite 1200
s CA 94104
277-7200
155 Montgomer:
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WILLIAM T. WEBB #193832
JENNIFER D. SU #291603
155 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104 FILED ~
(415) 277-7200 Superior Court of California,
(415) 277-7210 (fax) ‘County of San Francisco
Attorneys for BILLFLOAT, INC., 11/18/2016
RYAN GILBERT AND SEAN O’MALLEY Clerk of the Court
BY-:ROMY RISK
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
(Unlimited Jurisdiction)
GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK,N.A., } Case No.: CGC-16-549804
Plaintiff, } DECLARATION OF JENNIFER D. SU IN
) SUPPORT OF AGREED APPLICATION
v. } FOR COMPLEX DESIGNATION AND
) ASSIGNMENT TO DEPARTMENT 304
BILLFLOAT, INC., RYAN GILBERT, SEAN )
O'MALLEY, DOES 1-50, 3
Defendants. ;
)
)
)
)
BILLFLOAT, INC. )
Cross-Complainant, }
)
v. )
)
GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK, N.A., and ROES ;
1-50, )
)
Cross-Defendants. }
)
)
DECLARATION OF JENNIFER D. SU IN SUPPORT OF AGREED APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX DESIGNATION AND
ASSIGNMENT TO DEPARTMENT 304WEBB LEGAL GROUP
mery Street, Suite 1200
a
&
=
I, JENNIFER D. SU, declare:
L. Iam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in all the courts of the State of
California. Tam one of the attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant BillFloat, Inc.
(“BillFloat”) and Defendants Ryan Gilbert, and Sean O’Malley. The statements in this
Declaration are made on the basis of my own personal knowledge, and I could, and would,
competently testify thereto if called upon to do so.
2. On November 10, 2016, BillFloat’s motion to compel further discovery responses
to GPB came on for hearing. On the Court’s own motion, Honorable Harold E. Kahn decided to
appoint a referee for all discovery purposes in this case. Per the Court’s tentative ruling, “The
exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of a discovery referee are the large number
of discovery disputes that the parties have already had in this case and the large amount of
paperwork that the parties have filed in support of and in opposition to motions to compel.” A
true and correct copy of the tentative ruling is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. At the November 10, 2016 hearing, the Court, aware the Parties would be filing
the instant Application, set a hearing date of November 29, 2016 for further status.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that if called as a witness, I could competently testify to the
same.
Executed this on Friday, November 18, 2016, at San Francisco, California.
1
DECLARATION OF JENNIFER D. SU IN SUPPORT OF AGREED APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX DESIGNATION AND
ASSIGNMENT TO DEPARTMENT 304EXHIBIT ALL/18/2016 Tentative Rulings
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Tentative Rulings
Law & Motion/Discovery Department 302
You can search by Case Number, Court Date or a combinetion of Court Date and Case Number.
Case Number:
And/Or
Court Date: 2016-11-10
Search
Total Records Found 15
Case Number: CPF 16514783,
Case Title SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC. VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Court Date! NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM
Jendar Matter: Notice Of Motion And Motion For iss:
yance Of Writ Of Mandate
Ca
Rulings: Matter on calendar for Thu
Mandate, Petit
Findings is vacated. The hearing officer erred in determining that he had jurisdiction to determine whether the Department of Public Works presented
sufficient evidence to support its substitution demand. All three bases that the hearing officer offered for his exercise of jurisdiction are
day, Novernber 10,
ne 1, PETITIONER SYNERGY PROJEGT MANAGEMENT, INC. Motion For Issuance Of Writ OF
granted and the January 8, 2016 Statement of Hearing Officer
ner Synergy Project Management, ine:'s petition for writ of manda
erran
ous asa
‘matter of law. The parties agree that section 4107of the Public Contract Code by itself is not a basis for jurisdiction where, as here, the proposed
substitu tractor is initiated by th also agree that, per section 4.04 of the cont
the subcontractor can only occur if Ghitotti
ion of a sul
warding authority, not prime contractor. The partie
between the Depariment of Public Works and Ghiloit, a hearing to determine the propriety of substitu
requested the replacement of Synergy. None of the evicen
ited by the City to show that Ghilotti made such a request shows that Ghilotti did in fact
make such a request. A review of the relevant portions of the Administrative Recos hearing held by the
{ails to disclose any instance where prior to th
hearing officer Ghilotti requested that the Department of Public Works repiace Synergy asa subcontractor. While Ghilott Investigated potential
replacement 1d Ghilotti to remove Synergy (AR Tab 83; Hearing Transcript 89:7-16),
that is not the same as Ghilotti making a request to the City that Synergy be removed. Nor was there any jurisdiction to hold the hearing simply because
such a hearing is not precluded by section 4107. For the hearing officer to have jurisdiction to address the substantive issue he addressed there must be
some statute, ordinance, contract or other legal authority providing the hearing officer with such jurisdiction. Because there is none, the hearing officer
cont
tars to avoid breaching its contract afler the City dire
lacked jurisdiction and thus, per CCP 1094.5, he prejudicially abused his discretion by proceeding in a manner not authorized by law by addressing the
issue of whether the Department of Pu
ruling must send an
Works presented sufficient evidence to support its substitution demand, Any party who contests a tenta
to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative
ruling that the party contests, The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel for Synergy is required to
\g and must bring the proposed order to the hearing or email
(302/HK)
ve
mail to contestdept302tn@sfte.org with @ cop:
prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative rul
It to contestdept302tr@sttc.org prior to the hearing even if the ten
Wve ruling 8 not conte:
Case Number CPF 16514783
Case Title SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC. VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Court Date: NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter Petitioner Ghilott Bros., Inc'S Motion For Judgment On Writ
Rutings: Matter on calendar for Thursday, November 10, 2016, Line 1, Motion For Judgment On Wiit Petlioner Ghilott Bros., Inc.'s petition for wil of mandate is
granted and the January 8, 2016 Statement of Hearing Officer Findings
determine whether the Department of Public
vacated. The hearing officer erred in determining that he had jurisdiction to
Works presented sufficient evidence to support ils subs
officer offered for his exercise of jurisdiction are erroneous as a matter of law. The parties agree that
not a basis for j
lution demand. All three bases that the hearing
ction 4107of the Public Contract Code by itse
risdiction where, as here, the proposed substitution of a subcontractor is initiated by the awarding authority, not prime contractor. The
iso agree that, per
parties section 4.04 of the contract be
stween the Department af Public Works and Ghilotti, a hearing to determine the propriety of
substituting the subcontractor can only occur if Ghilott requested the replacement of Synergy. None of the evidence cited by the City to show that Gi
made such a request shows that Ghilott did in fact make such @ request. A review of the relevant portions of the Administrative Record fails to disclose
any instance where prior to the hearing held by the hearing officer Ghilotti requested that the Department of Public Works rept
Hott
© Synergy as a
jacemnent subcontractors to avoid breaching its contract after the City directed Ghiloti to remove
Synergy (AR Tab 83; Hearing Transcript 89:7-16), that is not the same as Ghilotti making a request to the City that Synergy be removed. Nor was there
any juriscl
subcontractor. While Ghilott investigated potential re
on to hold the hearing simply because such a hearing is not precluded by section 4107. For the hearing officer to have jurisdiction to address
the substantive issue he addressed there must be some statute, ordinance, contract or other
jurisdiction. Because there is none, the hearing officer f
.gal authority providing the hearing officer with su
ed jurisdiction and thus, per CCP 1094.5, he prejudicially abused his discretion by proceeding
ina manner not authorized by law by addressing the issue of whether the Department of Public Works presented sufficient evidence to support its
substitution demand. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@stte.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm
statin e ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case
without argument, the portion(s) of the tentati
ame and case number. Counsel for Ghilott is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling
and m
=(302/HK)
bring the proposed order to the hearing or email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.o1g prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested
http://webapps sfte org/tr/tr dil RulingID=2&SessionID=1977BBB3934C420B8FOBBEFCF993A D4E455AC59SAL/18/2016
Case Number:
Case Tile:
Court Date:
Catondar Matter:
Rulings:
Case Number:
Case Title:
Court Date:
Calendar Matter:
Rulings:
Case Number:
Case Title:
Court Date:
Calendar Matter:
Rulings:
Case Number:
Case Title:
Court Date:
Calendar Matter:
Rulings:
‘Case Number:
Tentative Rulings
CPF16514961
FELIPE YEBRA MORALES VS. KAGAN TURGUT
NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM
MOTION FOR SET ASIDE/VACATE JUDGMENT
‘Matter on calendar for Thursday. November 10, 2016, Line 2, DEFENDANT KAGAN TURGUT MOTION FOR SET ASIDE/VACATE JUDGMENT.
Defendant Kagan Turgut’s motion to set aside the judgment filed April 15, 2016 is granted. The court credits the swom statements of Mr. Turgut that he
did not receive notice of the Labor Commissioner's decision, the filing or pendency of this case or the judgment entered in this case until late July 2016.
Mr. Turgut has acted with reasonable diligence since thal time. Accordingly, Mr. Turgut is entitled to have the judgment set aside per CCP 473(6) and
473.5 and in keeping with California's strong public policy of deciding cases on their merits. Nothing in Labor Code 98.2 precludes the rellef per CCP
473(b) and 473. The ten day time frame for Mr. Turgut to file an appeal from the decision of the Labor Commissioner commences with the filing of the
order on this motion, Mr. Turgut is reminded that he is required to post an undertaking as required by Labor Code 98.2(b). All monies received by Mr.
‘Morales or his assignee on account of the judgment must be provided to counsel for the assignee and held in that counse!'s trust acoount until entry of a
judgment on an appeat if an appeal is filed or, if itis not, unti the time for filing an appeal has expired. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send
an email to contestdept302tr@sfc.org with a copy to all other parties by dpm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party
contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Mr. Turgut is required to prepare a proposed order
Which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing or emall ito
contestdept#02tr@stte.org prior to the hearing even ifthe tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/HK)
0GC13531107
JOHN COWAN VS. DANIEL LOPEZ et al
NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM
Piaintif Broderick’S Motion For issue Sanctions Against Defendant
Matter on calendar for Thursday, November 10, 2016, Line 3, Plaintiff Broderick’s Motion For Issue Sanctions Against Defendant. Plaintiff Timothy
Brodetick’s motion for issue sanction is granted. As an appropriate sanction for Mr. Lopez’ non-compliance with the August 16, 2016 court order requiring
him to produce his cell phone for inspection, itis now established for all purposes in this case that Mr. Lopez’ cell phone contains evidence that Mr. Lopez
Published the allegedly defamatory statements referred to in Mr, Broderick's second amended complaint. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must
send an email to contesidept3026@site.org with a copy to alt other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, {he portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the
party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Mr. Broderick is required to prepare a proposed
otder which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing or email it
contestdept302tr@sfte.org prior to the hearing even ifthe tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/HK)
GC13832097
LESLIE FINLEY VS. DREXEL A. BRADSHAW et al (PL Challenge Judge Goldsmith and Judge Kahn)
NOV-10-2016 09:00 AM
Notice Of Motion To (1) Compel Further Responses To Discovery; (2) Compe Responses To Discovery; (3) Compe! Production Of Documents; And For
Monetary Sanctions,
‘SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, November 10, 2016, LINE 1 DEFENDANT DREXEL BRADSHAW'S Motion To (1} Compel Further Responses To
Discovery; (2) Compel Responses To Discovery; (3) Compel Production Of Documents: And For Monetary Sanctions Pro Tem Judge Katherine
Huibonhoa, a member of the Califomia State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been
assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign @ stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the
Pro Tom judge. If aif parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will procead before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the
same authority as a Superior Court Judge. fa party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not
alt parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge wil hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and
the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept, 302 Judge, who will then decide the mation. Ifa party does not appear at the
hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court
Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: No tentative; parties to appear. Parties shall meet and confer in advance of the
hearing on November 10, 2016 and be prepared to report on the results of their meet-and-confer efforts at the hearing. Any party who contests a tentative
ruling must send an email to Katherinehuibonhea@gbatip.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the
tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number, =302/\JPT
©6C18543905
AARON NEVATT VS. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVER ET AL
NOV-10-2016 09:00 AM
Piaintiff Aaron Nevatt'S Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Production Of Documents From Defendant Board Of Trustees Of
California State University, And Request For Monetary Sanctions In The Amount Of $26,174.68 Under Code Of Civil Procedure Section 2031.31
SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, November 10, 2016, LINE 4 Plaintif Aaron Nevat’S Motion To Compe! Further Responses To Requests For
Production Of Documents From Defendant Board Of Trustees Of Califomia State University, And Request For Monetary Sanetions In The Amount Of
326,174.68 Under Code Of Givi Procedure Section 2031.310 Continued on the court's own motion to November 21, 2016 at 9:00 AM in Department 302.
Any paity who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without
argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contasts. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case
6015845919
http://webapps sfte org/tr/tr dll RulingID=2&SessionID=1977BBB3934C420B8FOBBEFCF993 A D4E455AC595 2SIL18/2016
Case Tit
Court Date:
Calendar Matter:
Rulings:
Case Number:
Case Title:
Court Date:
Calendar Matter:
Rulings:
Case Number:
Case Title:
Court Date:
Calendar Matter:
Rulings:
Case Number:
Case Title:
Court Date:
Calendar Matter:
Rulings:
Tentative Rulings
KATHRYN TOWNE ET AL VS. CIFY ANO COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL
NOV-10-2016 09:00 AM
Notice Of Motion And Motion To Gompet Plaintiffs Varified Responses To Form interrogatories, Set One, Special interrogatories, Set One, And Request
For Production Of Documents, Set One, And Request For Sanctions In The Amount Of $1.751 Against Plaintiffs And Their Counsel
SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, November 10, 2016, LINE 2 DEFENDANT JOHN STEWART COMPANY'S Motion To Compel Piaintifis Verified
Responses To Form interrogatories, Set One, Special interrogatories, Set One, And Request For Production Of Documents, Set One, And Request For
‘Sanctions In The Amount Of $1,751 Against Piaintifis And Their Counsel Pro Tem Judge Katherine Huibonhoa, a member of the California State Bar who
meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion, Prior to the hearing ail parties to
‘the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation,
‘the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tern who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by
telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. f not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge
‘will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papars submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue @ report in the nature of a recommendation to
the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. Ifa party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the
motion wil be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative
ruling: No tentative; parties to appear. Any party who contests a tentalive ruling must send an email to katherinehuibonhoa@gballp.com with a copy fo all
other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the perty contests. The subject line of the email shall include the
line number, case name and case number. Judge Pro Tem: Nils Rosenquest; Clerk: Jose Rios Merida; Not Reported. (D302%jpt)
06015545919
KATHRYN TOWNE ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL
NOV-10-2016 09:00 AM
Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Plaintiffs Verified Responses To Form Intewogatories, Set Two, Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Request For
Production Of Documents, Set Two, And Request For Sanctions In The Amount Of $565 Against Plaintiffs And Their Counset
SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, November 10, 2016, LINE 2 DEFENDANT JOHN STEWART COMPANY'S Motion To Compel Piaintifis Verified
Responses To Form interrogatories, Sel Two, Special interrogatories, Set Two, Request For Production Of Documents, Set Two, And Request For
Sanctions In The Amount Of $565 Against Plaintiffs And Their Counsel Pro Tem Judge Katherine Huibonhoa, a member of the California State Bar who
meets ail the requirements sel forth in CRC 2.812 lo serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to
the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation,
the hearing will procesd before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by
telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. if not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge
‘will hold @ hearing on the motion and, based on the papers subrnitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to
the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. Ifa parly does not appear al the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the
motion will be dacided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative
ruling: No tentative; parties lo appear. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to Katherinehuibonhoa@gbgllp.com with a copy to all
other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the
line number, case name and case number. <302/PT
0GC15545919
KATHRYN TOWNE ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL
NOV-10-2016 09:00 AM
Defendant John Stewart Companys Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Establishing Admissions, And Request For Sanctions in The Amount Of
$725 Against Piaintiff Kathryn Towne And Her Counsel
‘SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, November 10, 2016, LINE 2 DEFENDANT JOHN STEWART COMPANY'S Motion For Order Establishing
Admissions, And Request For Sanctions In The Amount Of $725 Against Plaintiff Kathryn Towne And Her Counsel Pro Tem Judge Katherine Huibonhoa,
a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, hes been assigned to hear
this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge.
{fall parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will deckie the motion with the same authority as @
‘Superior Court Judge. if a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. f not alt parties to the
motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Ten Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the partios and the hearing, issue
report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. Ifa party does not appear at the hearing, the party
will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem
Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: No tentative; parties to appear. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to
katherinenuibonhoa@aballp.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party
contests, The subject fine of the email shall include the fine number, case name and case number. =302/JPT
6015849039
LINDA BREWSTER VS, DIPAK PATEL ET AL
NOV-10-2016 09:00 AM
Defendant Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc.'S Defendant Tendertoin Housing Clinic, inc.$ Notice Of Motion To Compel Plaintiffs To Respond To Requests
For Admissions, Form interrogatories, Special interrogatories, And Document Requests, And Request For Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintifs And
Their Counsel Of Record, Jointly And Severally
SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, November 10, 2076, LINE 5 Defendant Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc.’S Motion To Compel Plaintiffs To Respond
To Requests For Admissions, Form interrogatories, Special nlerogatories, And Document Requests, And Request For Monelary Sanctions Against
Plaintiffs And Their Counsel Of Record, Jointly And Severally Pro Tem Judge Katherine Huibonhoa, a member of the California State Bar who meets all
the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned fo hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the
http://webapps sfte org/tr/tr dll RulingID=2&SessionID=1977BBB3934C420B8FOBBEFCF993 A D4E455AC595 3/5IL18/2016
Case Number:
Case Title:
Court Date:
Calendar Matter:
Rulings:
Case Number:
Case Title:
Court Date:
Calendar Matter:
Rulings:
Case Number:
Case Title:
Court Date:
Calendar Matter:
Rulings:
Case Number:
Case Title:
Court Date:
Tentative Rulings
motion wil be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the
hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Courl Judge. Ifa parly appears by
telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge
will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue @ report in the nature of a recommendation to
the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. fa party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the
motion wil be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentalive
ruling: No tentative; parties to appear. Parties shall meet and confer in advance of the hearing on November 10, 2016 and be prepared to report on the
results of their meet-and-confer efforts at the hearing. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to katherinehuibonhoa@gbglip.com
with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portions) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email
shail include the line number, case name and case number. =302MPT
616549793
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-3 VS. ZACHARY S DAVIDSON ET AL
NOV-10-2016 09:00 AM
Notice Of Motion And Motion To Deem Matters Admitted
SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, November 10, 2076, LINE 3 PLAINTIFF NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-3'S Motion To
Deem Matters Admitted Pro Tem Judge Katherine Huibonhoa, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC.
2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, Nas been assigned to hear this motion, Prior to the hearing aif parties to the motion will be asked to sign a
stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. if all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before
the Judge Fro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. if a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be
signed via fax or consent to sign given by emait. f not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold @ hearing on the motion
and, based on the papers submitted by the perties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will
then decide the motion. Ifa parly does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro
‘Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Granted, for reasons set
forth in Plaintif's moving papers and the motion is unopposed. Any party who contests a tentalive ruling must send an email to
katherinehuibonhoa@gballp.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party
contests. The subject line of the email shail include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are
deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is
required to prepare a proposed order, =302/JPT
oGc16s49804
GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK, NA. VS. BILLFLOAT, INC. ET AL
NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM
Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel
Matter on calendar for Thursday, November 10, 2018, Line 4, CROSS COMPLAINANT BILLFLOAT, INC. Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel. Per
CCP 639{a)(5) . (¢), (4)(2) and (d}(6), the court on its own motion has decided to appoint a referee for all discovery purposes in this case. The exceptional
circumstances requiring the appointment of a discovery referee are the large number of discovery disputes that the parties have already had in this case
and the large amount of paperwork that the parties have filed in support of and in opposition to motions to compel. The court further finds that the parties
have the economic ability to pay their pro rata share of the referee's fees. The parties are required to meet and confer in an effort to agree on the person
OF persons to serve as the referee. Per CCP 649, Ifthe parties cannot agree, there will be a single discovery referee and each side may nominate up to
three persons by filing a list of nominees no later than November 17, 2016 and may object to the persons nominated by the other side no later than
November 23, 2016 and the hearing will be continued to November 30, 2016 for the appointment of the referee. Any party who contests a tentative ruling
‘must send an email to contesidept30ztr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling
that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the fine number, case name and case number. =(S02/HK}
©GC16550966
CHARTER ASSET MANAGEMENT FUND. LP VS. ZOE LEARNING ACADEMY, INC. A TEXAS CORPORATION
NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM
Notice Of Motion And Defendant Richard Rose, Joyce Colquitt, Matthew Thompson, Yvonne Sells, Eva Williams-Phagan, &Amp; Everett Brassies Motion
‘To Quash Service Of Summons
Matter on calendar for Thursday, November 10, 2016, Line 5, DEFENDANT RICHARD ROSE, JOYCE COLQUITT, MATTHEW THOMPSON, YVONNE,
SELLS, EVA WILLIAMS-PHAGAN, EVERETT BRASSIE Motion And Defendant Richard Rose, Joyce Colquitt, Matthew Thompson, Yvonne Sells, Eva
Wiliams-Phagan, &Amp; Everett Brassies Motion To Quash Service Of Summons. The motion to quash of defendants Richard Rose, Joyce Colquitt,
‘Yvonne Sells, Eva Wiliams-Phagan is denied. Their alleged tortious conduct directed towards plaintiff Charter Asset Management Fund, L.P,, which has
its principal place of business in California, is sufficient to impose specific personal jurisdiction over all of them, (Integral Development Corp. v.
\Weissenbach (2002) 99 Cal. App 4th 576, 587.) The motion to quesh of defendants Everett Brassie and Matthew Thompson is denied as premature. Mr.
Brassie and Mr, Thompson have yet fo be served and thus have no basis to quash service that has not been made on them, Any party who contests a
‘tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept30Zir@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the
tentative ruling that the party contests, The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel for the plaintiff is
required to prepare @ proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the
hearing or email it to contestdept302tr@sttc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/HK)
0016551025
SASHA HOFFMAN VS. UNITED SEATING & MOBILITY, DBA NUMOTION ET AL
NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM
http://webapps sfte org/tr/tr dll RulingID=2&SessionID=1977BBB3934C420B8FOBBEFCF993 A D4E455AC595 4SIL18/2016
Calendar Matter:
Rulings:
Case Number:
Case Title:
Court Date:
Calendar Matter:
Rutings:
Tentative Rulings
Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint
Matter on catondar for Thursday, November 10, 2016, Line 6, PLAINTIFF SASHA HOFFMAN Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
‘Sasha Hoffman's motion for leave to file amended complaint is granted. No opposition filed. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an amail
to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s} of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
The subject line of the email shail include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel for the plaintiff is required to prepare a proposed order
Which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order fo the hearing or email it to
contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested, =(302/HK)
©GC16553589
NATASHA WILLIAMS VS. CITY NATIONAL BANK, A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL
NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM
MOTION / Notice Of And Petition To Compel Arbitration And Motion To Dismiss Or, in The Alternative, Stay Action; Memorandum Of Points And
Authorities And Supporting Declarations Of Kathryn Bridenbaugh And Wiliam Davis Harn
Matter on calendar for Thursday, November 10, 2016, Line 7, DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK, Petition To Compel Arbitration And Motion To
Dismiss Or, In The Altemative, Stay Action. Defendant City National Bank's motion to compel arbitration is granted and this case is stayed pending the
‘completion of the arbitration proceedings. The Bank satisfied its burden of showing that Ms. Williams agreed to the terms of the arbitration agreement in
her employment application. California case law enforces arbitration agreements in employment applications even when an application is not signed by
the employer since the employer's intent to be bound by the agreement is evidenced by its use of the application. (Cruise v. Kroger Co. (2015) 233 Cal
‘App. 4th 390), Assuming without deciding that the arbitration agreement has @ high degree of procedural unconscionability, plaintitf Natasha Williams has
not shown any substantive unconscionability and thus the arbitration agreement is not unconscionable. The only grounds asserted by Ms. Williams why
the arbitration agreementis substantively unconscionable is the attorney's fees provision and the absence of any provision regarding judicial review.
Unlike the attorney's fees provision in Triveldi v. Curexo Technology Corp. (2010) Cal.App.4th 387, 304-396, the attorney's fees provision in the arbitration
agreement agreed fo by Ms. Willams does not expose Ms, Willams to a fee award thal is contrary to FEHA or other applicable law. The absence of a
judicial review provision in the arbitration agreement agreed to by Ms. Willams necessarily means that the judicial review provisions of the California
‘Avbitration Act apply. No court has held that the applicability of such provisions renders an arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable. Any party
who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the
ortion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel
{for City National Bank is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the
proposed order to the hearing or email it to contestdept302t@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruting is not contested. =(302/HK)
http://webapps sfte org/tr/tr dll RulingID=2&SessionID=1977BBB3934C420B8FOBBEFCF993 A D4E455AC595
SIS
Preview
WEBB LEGAL GROUP treet, Suite 1200 s CA 94104 277-7200 155 Montgomer: 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WILLIAM T. WEBB #193832 JENNIFER D. SU #291603 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 FILED ~ (415) 277-7200 Superior Court of California, (415) 277-7210 (fax) ‘County of San Francisco Attorneys for BILLFLOAT, INC., 11/18/2016 RYAN GILBERT AND SEAN O’MALLEY Clerk of the Court BY-:ROMY RISK Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (Unlimited Jurisdiction) GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK,N.A., } Case No.: CGC-16-549804 Plaintiff, } DECLARATION OF JENNIFER D. SU IN ) SUPPORT OF AGREED APPLICATION v. } FOR COMPLEX DESIGNATION AND ) ASSIGNMENT TO DEPARTMENT 304 BILLFLOAT, INC., RYAN GILBERT, SEAN ) O'MALLEY, DOES 1-50, 3 Defendants. ; ) ) ) ) BILLFLOAT, INC. ) Cross-Complainant, } ) v. ) ) GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK, N.A., and ROES ; 1-50, ) ) Cross-Defendants. } ) ) DECLARATION OF JENNIFER D. SU IN SUPPORT OF AGREED APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX DESIGNATION AND ASSIGNMENT TO DEPARTMENT 304WEBB LEGAL GROUP mery Street, Suite 1200 a & = I, JENNIFER D. SU, declare: L. Iam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in all the courts of the State of California. Tam one of the attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant BillFloat, Inc. (“BillFloat”) and Defendants Ryan Gilbert, and Sean O’Malley. The statements in this Declaration are made on the basis of my own personal knowledge, and I could, and would, competently testify thereto if called upon to do so. 2. On November 10, 2016, BillFloat’s motion to compel further discovery responses to GPB came on for hearing. On the Court’s own motion, Honorable Harold E. Kahn decided to appoint a referee for all discovery purposes in this case. Per the Court’s tentative ruling, “The exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of a discovery referee are the large number of discovery disputes that the parties have already had in this case and the large amount of paperwork that the parties have filed in support of and in opposition to motions to compel.” A true and correct copy of the tentative ruling is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. At the November 10, 2016 hearing, the Court, aware the Parties would be filing the instant Application, set a hearing date of November 29, 2016 for further status. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that if called as a witness, I could competently testify to the same. Executed this on Friday, November 18, 2016, at San Francisco, California. 1 DECLARATION OF JENNIFER D. SU IN SUPPORT OF AGREED APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX DESIGNATION AND ASSIGNMENT TO DEPARTMENT 304EXHIBIT ALL/18/2016 Tentative Rulings THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Tentative Rulings Law & Motion/Discovery Department 302 You can search by Case Number, Court Date or a combinetion of Court Date and Case Number. Case Number: And/Or Court Date: 2016-11-10 Search Total Records Found 15 Case Number: CPF 16514783, Case Title SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC. VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Court Date! NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM Jendar Matter: Notice Of Motion And Motion For iss: yance Of Writ Of Mandate Ca Rulings: Matter on calendar for Thu Mandate, Petit Findings is vacated. The hearing officer erred in determining that he had jurisdiction to determine whether the Department of Public Works presented sufficient evidence to support its substitution demand. All three bases that the hearing officer offered for his exercise of jurisdiction are day, Novernber 10, ne 1, PETITIONER SYNERGY PROJEGT MANAGEMENT, INC. Motion For Issuance Of Writ OF granted and the January 8, 2016 Statement of Hearing Officer ner Synergy Project Management, ine:'s petition for writ of manda erran ous asa ‘matter of law. The parties agree that section 4107of the Public Contract Code by itself is not a basis for jurisdiction where, as here, the proposed substitu tractor is initiated by th also agree that, per section 4.04 of the cont the subcontractor can only occur if Ghitotti ion of a sul warding authority, not prime contractor. The partie between the Depariment of Public Works and Ghiloit, a hearing to determine the propriety of substitu requested the replacement of Synergy. None of the evicen ited by the City to show that Ghilotti made such a request shows that Ghilotti did in fact make such a request. A review of the relevant portions of the Administrative Recos hearing held by the {ails to disclose any instance where prior to th hearing officer Ghilotti requested that the Department of Public Works repiace Synergy asa subcontractor. While Ghilott Investigated potential replacement 1d Ghilotti to remove Synergy (AR Tab 83; Hearing Transcript 89:7-16), that is not the same as Ghilotti making a request to the City that Synergy be removed. Nor was there any jurisdiction to hold the hearing simply because such a hearing is not precluded by section 4107. For the hearing officer to have jurisdiction to address the substantive issue he addressed there must be some statute, ordinance, contract or other legal authority providing the hearing officer with such jurisdiction. Because there is none, the hearing officer cont tars to avoid breaching its contract afler the City dire lacked jurisdiction and thus, per CCP 1094.5, he prejudicially abused his discretion by proceeding in a manner not authorized by law by addressing the issue of whether the Department of Pu ruling must send an Works presented sufficient evidence to support its substitution demand, Any party who contests a tenta to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests, The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel for Synergy is required to \g and must bring the proposed order to the hearing or email (302/HK) ve mail to contestdept302tn@sfte.org with @ cop: prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative rul It to contestdept302tr@sttc.org prior to the hearing even if the ten Wve ruling 8 not conte: Case Number CPF 16514783 Case Title SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC. VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Court Date: NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM Calendar Matter Petitioner Ghilott Bros., Inc'S Motion For Judgment On Writ Rutings: Matter on calendar for Thursday, November 10, 2016, Line 1, Motion For Judgment On Wiit Petlioner Ghilott Bros., Inc.'s petition for wil of mandate is granted and the January 8, 2016 Statement of Hearing Officer Findings determine whether the Department of Public vacated. The hearing officer erred in determining that he had jurisdiction to Works presented sufficient evidence to support ils subs officer offered for his exercise of jurisdiction are erroneous as a matter of law. The parties agree that not a basis for j lution demand. All three bases that the hearing ction 4107of the Public Contract Code by itse risdiction where, as here, the proposed substitution of a subcontractor is initiated by the awarding authority, not prime contractor. The iso agree that, per parties section 4.04 of the contract be stween the Department af Public Works and Ghilotti, a hearing to determine the propriety of substituting the subcontractor can only occur if Ghilott requested the replacement of Synergy. None of the evidence cited by the City to show that Gi made such a request shows that Ghilott did in fact make such @ request. A review of the relevant portions of the Administrative Record fails to disclose any instance where prior to the hearing held by the hearing officer Ghilotti requested that the Department of Public Works rept Hott © Synergy as a jacemnent subcontractors to avoid breaching its contract after the City directed Ghiloti to remove Synergy (AR Tab 83; Hearing Transcript 89:7-16), that is not the same as Ghilotti making a request to the City that Synergy be removed. Nor was there any juriscl subcontractor. While Ghilott investigated potential re on to hold the hearing simply because such a hearing is not precluded by section 4107. For the hearing officer to have jurisdiction to address the substantive issue he addressed there must be some statute, ordinance, contract or other jurisdiction. Because there is none, the hearing officer f .gal authority providing the hearing officer with su ed jurisdiction and thus, per CCP 1094.5, he prejudicially abused his discretion by proceeding ina manner not authorized by law by addressing the issue of whether the Department of Public Works presented sufficient evidence to support its substitution demand. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@stte.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm statin e ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case without argument, the portion(s) of the tentati ame and case number. Counsel for Ghilott is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and m =(302/HK) bring the proposed order to the hearing or email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.o1g prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested http://webapps sfte org/tr/tr dil RulingID=2&SessionID=1977BBB3934C420B8FOBBEFCF993A D4E455AC59SAL/18/2016 Case Number: Case Tile: Court Date: Catondar Matter: Rulings: Case Number: Case Title: Court Date: Calendar Matter: Rulings: Case Number: Case Title: Court Date: Calendar Matter: Rulings: Case Number: Case Title: Court Date: Calendar Matter: Rulings: ‘Case Number: Tentative Rulings CPF16514961 FELIPE YEBRA MORALES VS. KAGAN TURGUT NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM MOTION FOR SET ASIDE/VACATE JUDGMENT ‘Matter on calendar for Thursday. November 10, 2016, Line 2, DEFENDANT KAGAN TURGUT MOTION FOR SET ASIDE/VACATE JUDGMENT. Defendant Kagan Turgut’s motion to set aside the judgment filed April 15, 2016 is granted. The court credits the swom statements of Mr. Turgut that he did not receive notice of the Labor Commissioner's decision, the filing or pendency of this case or the judgment entered in this case until late July 2016. Mr. Turgut has acted with reasonable diligence since thal time. Accordingly, Mr. Turgut is entitled to have the judgment set aside per CCP 473(6) and 473.5 and in keeping with California's strong public policy of deciding cases on their merits. Nothing in Labor Code 98.2 precludes the rellef per CCP 473(b) and 473. The ten day time frame for Mr. Turgut to file an appeal from the decision of the Labor Commissioner commences with the filing of the order on this motion, Mr. Turgut is reminded that he is required to post an undertaking as required by Labor Code 98.2(b). All monies received by Mr. ‘Morales or his assignee on account of the judgment must be provided to counsel for the assignee and held in that counse!'s trust acoount until entry of a judgment on an appeat if an appeal is filed or, if itis not, unti the time for filing an appeal has expired. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sfc.org with a copy to all other parties by dpm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Mr. Turgut is required to prepare a proposed order Which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing or emall ito contestdept#02tr@stte.org prior to the hearing even ifthe tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/HK) 0GC13531107 JOHN COWAN VS. DANIEL LOPEZ et al NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM Piaintif Broderick’S Motion For issue Sanctions Against Defendant Matter on calendar for Thursday, November 10, 2016, Line 3, Plaintiff Broderick’s Motion For Issue Sanctions Against Defendant. Plaintiff Timothy Brodetick’s motion for issue sanction is granted. As an appropriate sanction for Mr. Lopez’ non-compliance with the August 16, 2016 court order requiring him to produce his cell phone for inspection, itis now established for all purposes in this case that Mr. Lopez’ cell phone contains evidence that Mr. Lopez Published the allegedly defamatory statements referred to in Mr, Broderick's second amended complaint. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contesidept3026@site.org with a copy to alt other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, {he portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Mr. Broderick is required to prepare a proposed otder which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing or email it contestdept302tr@sfte.org prior to the hearing even ifthe tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/HK) GC13832097 LESLIE FINLEY VS. DREXEL A. BRADSHAW et al (PL Challenge Judge Goldsmith and Judge Kahn) NOV-10-2016 09:00 AM Notice Of Motion To (1) Compel Further Responses To Discovery; (2) Compe Responses To Discovery; (3) Compe! Production Of Documents; And For Monetary Sanctions, ‘SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, November 10, 2016, LINE 1 DEFENDANT DREXEL BRADSHAW'S Motion To (1} Compel Further Responses To Discovery; (2) Compel Responses To Discovery; (3) Compel Production Of Documents: And For Monetary Sanctions Pro Tem Judge Katherine Huibonhoa, a member of the Califomia State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign @ stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tom judge. If aif parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will procead before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. fa party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not alt parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge wil hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept, 302 Judge, who will then decide the mation. Ifa party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: No tentative; parties to appear. Parties shall meet and confer in advance of the hearing on November 10, 2016 and be prepared to report on the results of their meet-and-confer efforts at the hearing. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to Katherinehuibonhea@gbatip.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number, =302/\JPT ©6C18543905 AARON NEVATT VS. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVER ET AL NOV-10-2016 09:00 AM Piaintiff Aaron Nevatt'S Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Production Of Documents From Defendant Board Of Trustees Of California State University, And Request For Monetary Sanctions In The Amount Of $26,174.68 Under Code Of Civil Procedure Section 2031.31 SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, November 10, 2016, LINE 4 Plaintif Aaron Nevat’S Motion To Compe! Further Responses To Requests For Production Of Documents From Defendant Board Of Trustees Of Califomia State University, And Request For Monetary Sanetions In The Amount Of 326,174.68 Under Code Of Givi Procedure Section 2031.310 Continued on the court's own motion to November 21, 2016 at 9:00 AM in Department 302. Any paity who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contasts. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case 6015845919 http://webapps sfte org/tr/tr dll RulingID=2&SessionID=1977BBB3934C420B8FOBBEFCF993 A D4E455AC595 2SIL18/2016 Case Tit Court Date: Calendar Matter: Rulings: Case Number: Case Title: Court Date: Calendar Matter: Rulings: Case Number: Case Title: Court Date: Calendar Matter: Rulings: Case Number: Case Title: Court Date: Calendar Matter: Rulings: Tentative Rulings KATHRYN TOWNE ET AL VS. CIFY ANO COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL NOV-10-2016 09:00 AM Notice Of Motion And Motion To Gompet Plaintiffs Varified Responses To Form interrogatories, Set One, Special interrogatories, Set One, And Request For Production Of Documents, Set One, And Request For Sanctions In The Amount Of $1.751 Against Plaintiffs And Their Counsel SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, November 10, 2016, LINE 2 DEFENDANT JOHN STEWART COMPANY'S Motion To Compel Piaintifis Verified Responses To Form interrogatories, Set One, Special interrogatories, Set One, And Request For Production Of Documents, Set One, And Request For ‘Sanctions In The Amount Of $1,751 Against Piaintifis And Their Counsel Pro Tem Judge Katherine Huibonhoa, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion, Prior to the hearing ail parties to ‘the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, ‘the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tern who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. f not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge ‘will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papars submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue @ report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. Ifa party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion wil be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: No tentative; parties to appear. Any party who contests a tentalive ruling must send an email to katherinehuibonhoa@gballp.com with a copy fo all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the perty contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Judge Pro Tem: Nils Rosenquest; Clerk: Jose Rios Merida; Not Reported. (D302%jpt) 06015545919 KATHRYN TOWNE ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL NOV-10-2016 09:00 AM Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Plaintiffs Verified Responses To Form Intewogatories, Set Two, Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Request For Production Of Documents, Set Two, And Request For Sanctions In The Amount Of $565 Against Plaintiffs And Their Counset SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, November 10, 2016, LINE 2 DEFENDANT JOHN STEWART COMPANY'S Motion To Compel Piaintifis Verified Responses To Form interrogatories, Sel Two, Special interrogatories, Set Two, Request For Production Of Documents, Set Two, And Request For Sanctions In The Amount Of $565 Against Plaintiffs And Their Counsel Pro Tem Judge Katherine Huibonhoa, a member of the California State Bar who meets ail the requirements sel forth in CRC 2.812 lo serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will procesd before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. if not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge ‘will hold @ hearing on the motion and, based on the papers subrnitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. Ifa parly does not appear al the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be dacided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: No tentative; parties lo appear. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to Katherinehuibonhoa@gbgllp.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. <302/PT 0GC15545919 KATHRYN TOWNE ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL NOV-10-2016 09:00 AM Defendant John Stewart Companys Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Establishing Admissions, And Request For Sanctions in The Amount Of $725 Against Piaintiff Kathryn Towne And Her Counsel ‘SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, November 10, 2016, LINE 2 DEFENDANT JOHN STEWART COMPANY'S Motion For Order Establishing Admissions, And Request For Sanctions In The Amount Of $725 Against Plaintiff Kathryn Towne And Her Counsel Pro Tem Judge Katherine Huibonhoa, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, hes been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. {fall parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will deckie the motion with the same authority as @ ‘Superior Court Judge. if a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. f not alt parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Ten Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the partios and the hearing, issue report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. Ifa party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: No tentative; parties to appear. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to katherinenuibonhoa@aballp.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests, The subject fine of the email shall include the fine number, case name and case number. =302/JPT 6015849039 LINDA BREWSTER VS, DIPAK PATEL ET AL NOV-10-2016 09:00 AM Defendant Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc.'S Defendant Tendertoin Housing Clinic, inc.$ Notice Of Motion To Compel Plaintiffs To Respond To Requests For Admissions, Form interrogatories, Special interrogatories, And Document Requests, And Request For Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintifs And Their Counsel Of Record, Jointly And Severally SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, November 10, 2076, LINE 5 Defendant Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc.’S Motion To Compel Plaintiffs To Respond To Requests For Admissions, Form interrogatories, Special nlerogatories, And Document Requests, And Request For Monelary Sanctions Against Plaintiffs And Their Counsel Of Record, Jointly And Severally Pro Tem Judge Katherine Huibonhoa, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned fo hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the http://webapps sfte org/tr/tr dll RulingID=2&SessionID=1977BBB3934C420B8FOBBEFCF993 A D4E455AC595 3/5IL18/2016 Case Number: Case Title: Court Date: Calendar Matter: Rulings: Case Number: Case Title: Court Date: Calendar Matter: Rulings: Case Number: Case Title: Court Date: Calendar Matter: Rulings: Case Number: Case Title: Court Date: Tentative Rulings motion wil be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Courl Judge. Ifa parly appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue @ report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. fa party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion wil be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentalive ruling: No tentative; parties to appear. Parties shall meet and confer in advance of the hearing on November 10, 2016 and be prepared to report on the results of their meet-and-confer efforts at the hearing. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to katherinehuibonhoa@gbglip.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portions) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shail include the line number, case name and case number. =302MPT 616549793 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-3 VS. ZACHARY S DAVIDSON ET AL NOV-10-2016 09:00 AM Notice Of Motion And Motion To Deem Matters Admitted SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, November 10, 2076, LINE 3 PLAINTIFF NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-3'S Motion To Deem Matters Admitted Pro Tem Judge Katherine Huibonhoa, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC. 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, Nas been assigned to hear this motion, Prior to the hearing aif parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. if all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Fro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. if a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by emait. f not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold @ hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the perties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. Ifa parly does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro ‘Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Granted, for reasons set forth in Plaintif's moving papers and the motion is unopposed. Any party who contests a tentalive ruling must send an email to katherinehuibonhoa@gballp.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shail include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order, =302/JPT oGc16s49804 GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK, NA. VS. BILLFLOAT, INC. ET AL NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Matter on calendar for Thursday, November 10, 2018, Line 4, CROSS COMPLAINANT BILLFLOAT, INC. Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel. Per CCP 639{a)(5) . (¢), (4)(2) and (d}(6), the court on its own motion has decided to appoint a referee for all discovery purposes in this case. The exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of a discovery referee are the large number of discovery disputes that the parties have already had in this case and the large amount of paperwork that the parties have filed in support of and in opposition to motions to compel. The court further finds that the parties have the economic ability to pay their pro rata share of the referee's fees. The parties are required to meet and confer in an effort to agree on the person OF persons to serve as the referee. Per CCP 649, Ifthe parties cannot agree, there will be a single discovery referee and each side may nominate up to three persons by filing a list of nominees no later than November 17, 2016 and may object to the persons nominated by the other side no later than November 23, 2016 and the hearing will be continued to November 30, 2016 for the appointment of the referee. Any party who contests a tentative ruling ‘must send an email to contesidept30ztr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the fine number, case name and case number. =(S02/HK} ©GC16550966 CHARTER ASSET MANAGEMENT FUND. LP VS. ZOE LEARNING ACADEMY, INC. A TEXAS CORPORATION NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM Notice Of Motion And Defendant Richard Rose, Joyce Colquitt, Matthew Thompson, Yvonne Sells, Eva Williams-Phagan, &Amp; Everett Brassies Motion ‘To Quash Service Of Summons Matter on calendar for Thursday, November 10, 2016, Line 5, DEFENDANT RICHARD ROSE, JOYCE COLQUITT, MATTHEW THOMPSON, YVONNE, SELLS, EVA WILLIAMS-PHAGAN, EVERETT BRASSIE Motion And Defendant Richard Rose, Joyce Colquitt, Matthew Thompson, Yvonne Sells, Eva Wiliams-Phagan, &Amp; Everett Brassies Motion To Quash Service Of Summons. The motion to quash of defendants Richard Rose, Joyce Colquitt, ‘Yvonne Sells, Eva Wiliams-Phagan is denied. Their alleged tortious conduct directed towards plaintiff Charter Asset Management Fund, L.P,, which has its principal place of business in California, is sufficient to impose specific personal jurisdiction over all of them, (Integral Development Corp. v. \Weissenbach (2002) 99 Cal. App 4th 576, 587.) The motion to quesh of defendants Everett Brassie and Matthew Thompson is denied as premature. Mr. Brassie and Mr, Thompson have yet fo be served and thus have no basis to quash service that has not been made on them, Any party who contests a ‘tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept30Zir@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests, The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel for the plaintiff is required to prepare @ proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing or email it to contestdept302tr@sttc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/HK) 0016551025 SASHA HOFFMAN VS. UNITED SEATING & MOBILITY, DBA NUMOTION ET AL NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM http://webapps sfte org/tr/tr dll RulingID=2&SessionID=1977BBB3934C420B8FOBBEFCF993 A D4E455AC595 4SIL18/2016 Calendar Matter: Rulings: Case Number: Case Title: Court Date: Calendar Matter: Rutings: Tentative Rulings Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint Matter on catondar for Thursday, November 10, 2016, Line 6, PLAINTIFF SASHA HOFFMAN Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint, Plaintiff ‘Sasha Hoffman's motion for leave to file amended complaint is granted. No opposition filed. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an amail to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s} of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shail include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel for the plaintiff is required to prepare a proposed order Which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order fo the hearing or email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested, =(302/HK) ©GC16553589 NATASHA WILLIAMS VS. CITY NATIONAL BANK, A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL NOV-10-2016 09:30 AM MOTION / Notice Of And Petition To Compel Arbitration And Motion To Dismiss Or, in The Alternative, Stay Action; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities And Supporting Declarations Of Kathryn Bridenbaugh And Wiliam Davis Harn Matter on calendar for Thursday, November 10, 2016, Line 7, DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK, Petition To Compel Arbitration And Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Altemative, Stay Action. Defendant City National Bank's motion to compel arbitration is granted and this case is stayed pending the ‘completion of the arbitration proceedings. The Bank satisfied its burden of showing that Ms. Williams agreed to the terms of the arbitration agreement in her employment application. California case law enforces arbitration agreements in employment applications even when an application is not signed by the employer since the employer's intent to be bound by the agreement is evidenced by its use of the application. (Cruise v. Kroger Co. (2015) 233 Cal ‘App. 4th 390), Assuming without deciding that the arbitration agreement has @ high degree of procedural unconscionability, plaintitf Natasha Williams has not shown any substantive unconscionability and thus the arbitration agreement is not unconscionable. The only grounds asserted by Ms. Williams why the arbitration agreementis substantively unconscionable is the attorney's fees provision and the absence of any provision regarding judicial review. Unlike the attorney's fees provision in Triveldi v. Curexo Technology Corp. (2010) Cal.App.4th 387, 304-396, the attorney's fees provision in the arbitration agreement agreed fo by Ms. Willams does not expose Ms, Willams to a fee award thal is contrary to FEHA or other applicable law. The absence of a judicial review provision in the arbitration agreement agreed to by Ms. Willams necessarily means that the judicial review provisions of the California ‘Avbitration Act apply. No court has held that the applicability of such provisions renders an arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the ortion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel {for City National Bank is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing or email it to contestdept302t@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruting is not contested. =(302/HK) http://webapps sfte org/tr/tr dll RulingID=2&SessionID=1977BBB3934C420B8FOBBEFCF993 A D4E455AC595 SIS