1.

BRODKE VS ALPHATEC SPINE INC

06CC04418

1. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

2. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE DEPOSTION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS SERVED ON CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC

3. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE DEPOSTION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS SERVED ON CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, DEPUY SPINE, INC.

4. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE DEPOSTION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS SERVED ON CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, INTERPORE CROSS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

5. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE DEPOSTION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS SERVED ON CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, LIFE SPINE INC.

6. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

7. DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION OF SARAH B. HERLIHY TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE

Motions 1-6 Continued to 10/16/08 and Motion 7 Off Calendar

2.

CHIEF AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES VS AUTO PERFECTIONS

08-109067

1. PLAINTIFF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION

2.PLAINTIFF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION

Motions 1 and 2 Off Calendar Per moving party.

3.

MEDINA VS DELMAR MOTOR CARS

07CC10987

1. PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S DELMAR MOTOR CARS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

2. PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S DELMARE MOTOR CAR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2031.010 ET SEQ. (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

3. PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S DELMAR MOTOR CARS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

4. PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S DELMAR MOTOR CARS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORMS INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

5. PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S KEVIN KAMYAB’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COST

6. PLAINTIFF MOTIONTO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S KEVIN KAMYAB’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2031.010 ET SEQ. (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COST

7. PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S KEVIN KAMYAB’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COST

8. PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S KEVIN KAMYAB’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COST

Motions # 1- 4 are unopposed and are granted against Δ Delmar Motors. Sanctions of $200 on each motion are granted against Δ Delmar Motors.

Motions # 5-8 are unopposed and are granted against Δ Kevin Kamyab. Sanctions of $200 per motion are granted against Δ Kevin Kamyab.

4.

MELVIN W. SMITH, AS TRUSTEE OF THE SMITH FAMILY TRUST, U/D/T 8/24/1987 VS SARRY LANGUAGE SYSTEMS

08-103010

1. DEFENDANT MOTION TO DISMISS

2. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Continued to 10/9/08 per moving party.

5.

MEMON VS KHAN

05CC12389

1.      DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DUE TO DELAY IN PROSECUTION

The JOP by Wells Fargo Bank and Barklays Capital Real Estate to the first amended complaint is granted with leave to amend. Π has not pled facts that would make moving defendants liable under the causes of action alleged.  The conclusory allegations of agency and employee status is not sufficient.  The court takes judicial notice of the court file, which shows that on 11/07/08, the dismissal of the Doe Defendants was vacated and Π then brought in via doe amendment the moving defendants.  Π sufficiently pleaded that the other defendants concealed the subject transfer and Π did not discover the transfer until 09/2005 so as to establish for purposes of JOP that the amendment was timely for a fraud claim.

6.

REYNOLDS VS DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

08-108743

1. PETITIONER PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

There is no POS of OSC and no administrative record lodged with the Court. Motion is continued to Oct. 30 2008.

7.

WRI INVESTMENTS III LLC V. CISAKOWSKI

08-107783

1. PLAINTIFF APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER/WRIT OF ATTACHMENT (CISAKOWSKI)

2. PLAINTIFF APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER/WRIT OF ATTACHMENT (DISTINGUISHED HOMES)

3. PLAINTIFF APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER/WRIT OF ATTACHMENT (THE RMC TRUST)

McHale Declaration does not state that she is custodian of records for MP.  MP does not really show a readily ascertainable amount owing because MP states that the amount owing is conditionally limited but does not indicate what the conditions are or if they have been met.  MP also states that the amount owing is unlimited under 10 of the Agreement if certain events have accrued but does not state what the certain events are or whether or not they have accrued.  The applications are denied without prejudice.

8.

PLUMMER VS COHEN

07CC05089

1. DEFENDANT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

Conversion: On 09/12/08, this court found plaintiff had no direct contractual relationship giving rise to a lien entitling him to payment from the settlement proceeds paid to defendant’s client.  Since plaintiff had no lien, he had no immediate right to possession of any part of the settlement proceeds for payment of fees orally agreed to by co-defendants Bisom and Cohen.  Nor was there a direct contractual right to the proceeds directly between Π and moving party.  Without a right of possession at the time of the alleged conversion, plaintiff cannot prevail on the 2nd Cause of Action for Conversion against this moving defendant.

Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage:  In paragraphs 48-50 of his First Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges moving defendant interfered with the prospective economic advantage he expected to obtain from his contractual relationship with moving party’s client.  However, because no contractual relationship existed, moving parties could not interfere with it.  Plaintiff cannot prevail on the 3rd COA for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Objections to evidence submitted by defendant are OVERRULED.  The objections are in the nature of argument, not objections to evidence.

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

Defendant’s Objection to the Declaration of Mark B. Plummer No. 7 is Sustained.  The remainder of the objections to the Declaration are OVERRULED.

Defendant’s Objections to the Declaration of Marc E. Edwards are SUSTAINED.

Defendant Day| Eisenberg’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 

#

Case Name

Tentative

#

Case Name

Matter

#

Case Name

Tentative