TENTATIVE RULINGS

 

DEPT C-13

 

Judge John C. Gastelum

The court will hear oral argument on all matters at the time noticed for the hearing, unless the Court has stated that the matter is off calendar. Do not call the department to verify if you should appear or not. Please read below for the information.  If you would prefer to submit to the Court’s tentative without oral argument, advise all counsel first to find out if all parties are submitting and then moving party is to telephone the clerk at (657)622-5213 with the status of all parties. If the moving party has submitted the matter and there are no appearances by any party at the hearing, the tentative ruling will be the final ruling. Rulings are normally posted on the Internet by 4:30 p.m. on the day before the hearing.  Generally, motions will not be continued or taken off calendar after the tentative has been posted. The moving party shall give notice of the ruling.

 

March 28, 2017

 

 

 

#

Case Name

Tentative

 

 

 

1

Abd Allah vs MV Public Transportation

 

15-789909

 

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or SAI

 

Ruling:  Off Calendar – no hearing will be held.  Continued to 4-3-17, Dept. C13, at 1:30 pm. 

 

No Special Treatment for Self-Represented Litigants:

 

Plaintiff is NOT entitled to special treatment because he is now self-represented.  A party appearing without a lawyer is not entitled to any greater privileges than an attorney.  (Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125-1126; Morgan v.  Ransom (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 664, 669; Bistawros v.  Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 193; Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1267.)

 

Defendants are not required to provide Plaintiff with an interpreter and/or translation of the documents in Arabic.   Further, the Court is not required to provide Plaintiff with an attorney and/or an interpreter for this hearing.  Finally, Plaintiff cannot seek to transfer this action in his “response” to Defendant’s Notice of Plaintiff’s Non-Opposition. 

 

Request for an Interpreter:

 

The Legislature has specifically found that it is imperative that courts provide interpreters to all parties who require one.  (Govt. Code, §68092.1(a).)  Notwithstanding any other law, a court may provide an interpreter in any civil action or proceeding at no cost to the parties, regardless of the parties' income. (Govt. Code, §68092.1(b).)  Until sufficient funds are appropriated to provide an interpreter to every party who needs one, interpreters must be provided in accordance with the priorities set forth in Evidence Code section 756.  (Govt. Code, § 68092.1(b).)

 

If sufficient funds are not appropriated to provide an interpreter to every party that meets the standard of eligibility, court interpreter services in civil cases must be prioritized by case type in the following order: (1) actions and proceedings under specified sections of the Family Code, under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(w), and for physical abuse or neglect under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, §15600 et seq.); (2) actions and proceedings relating to unlawful detainer; (3) actions and proceedings to terminate parental rights; (4) actions and proceedings relating to conservatorship or guardianship; (5) actions and proceedings by a parent to obtain sole legal or physical custody of a child or rights to visitation; (6) all other actions and proceedings under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 or the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act; (7) all other actions and proceedings related to family law; and (8) all other civil actions or proceedings.  (Evid. Code, §756(b).)

 

In Orange County Superior Court, in civil cases, with the exception of domestic violence proceedings and hearings for support involving the Department of Child Support Services in Family Law cases, the person needing the interpreter must get and pay for his or her own interpreter. 

 

Specifically, the Court website provides as follows: http://www.occourts.org/self-help/civil/index.html#interpreter

 

WHAT IF I NEED AN INTERPRETER?

SELECTING AN INTERPRETER

 

By law, in California all official court business must be conducted in English. When one of the parties or witnesses in a case does not speak English well, that person will need a court interpreter (who speaks English and the non-English speaker’s first language) so he or she can understand what is going on and talk to the judge.

 

In some cases (like criminal cases) the interpreter is paid for by the court and may be a court employee. However, in civil cases, with the exception of domestic violence proceedings and hearings for support involving the Department of Child Support Services in Family Law cases, the person needing the interpreter must get and pay for his or her own interpreter or get a friend to help interpret. It is your responsibility to get your own interpreter. You can ask a friend, relative, or someone else to interpret for you when you go to court. Do not ask a child to interpret for you.

 

The Court does not have a duty to provide Plaintiff with an interpreter at the hearing of the motion for summary adjudication.  It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to get his own interpreter.

 

2

Ascentium Capital LLC vs Pinches III, DO

 

15-824939

 

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or SAI

 

Ruling:  Off Calendar – no hearing will be held.  Continued by MP to 4-11-17, C13, at 2 pm.  

3

Eisenberg & Associates vs Chapman

 

15-775144

 

 

(1) Motion to Compel Deposition (oral or written) (2) Motion to Compel Production of Documents (3) Motion to Compel Deposition (oral or written) (4) Motion to Compel Production of Documents 

 

Ruling:  Off Calendar – no hearing will be held.  Motions are continued to 4-25-17, Dept. C13, at 2 pm. 

 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer before the continued hearing date and: (1) finalize the proposed stipulated protective order, and (2) set the dates for the depositions of Defendants/Cross-Complainants Alice Elizabeth Chapman and Duane Chapman. 

 

E&A submits evidence that Defendants did not appear and produce documents at their duly-noticed depositions.  (See Hinds Decl., ¶¶ 4-12, Exhs. A-H.) 

 

Defendants, in opposition, explain that: (1) the deposition notices are not enforceable because Defendants reside in Hawaii and E&A is seeking to take their deposition in Los Angeles; (2) Defendants never represented that they would not appear for their depositions, but that they were unavailable for the noticed dates because of their work schedule; (3) Defendants offered to provide additional dates for their depositions; (4) on 2-10-17, E&A noticed the depositions of the Defendants for March 7 and 8; (5) although Mr. Chapman’s deposition did not go forward on 3-7-17 due to unavailability of E&A counsel, Ms. Chapman’s deposition went forward on 3-8-17; and (6) the parties are in the process of finalizing a proposed protective order before completing the deposition of Ms. Chapman and moving forward with Mr. Chapman’s deposition.  (See DiNicola Decl., Exh. 1-9.) 

 

It appears that these motions may have been filed prematurely and that the parties would have likely come to an agreement regarding Defendants’ deposition dates.  It also appears that a court order and/or written stipulation was necessary to take Defendants’ deposition in Los Angeles since they reside in Hawaii.  Moreover, it appears that after these motions were filed, E&A noticed Defendants’ depositions for March 7 and 8; and although Mr. Chapman’s deposition did not go forward as scheduled on 3-7-17, apparently due to miscommunications and/or scheduling conflict, the deposition of Ms. Chapman went forward as noticed.  The parties also represent that they are in the process of finalizing a proposed protective order and that they will be completing the deposition of Ms. Chapman thereafter. 

 

Thus, the parties are ordered to meet and confer and: (1) finalize the proposed stipulated protective order, and (2) set the dates for the depositions of Defendants/Cross-Complainants Alice Elizabeth Chapman and Duane Chapman. 

 

The Court declines to award monetary sanctions to either side at this time.  It appears that the motions may have been necessary to secure firm dates for Defendants’ depositions, but that A&E may have failed to make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue by rescheduling the depositions. 

 

The Clerk is to give notice.

 

4

National Equity Funding vs Balsamo

 

16-831130

(1) Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (2) CMC

 

Ruling:  Off Calendar – no hearing will be held.  Unopposed Motion for Leave to file Third Amended Complaint is granted. Third Amended Complaint is deemed filed and served this date.

 

Since Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition, the parties could have simply stipulated to the filing of the Third Amended Complaint. Since, they have not, but all parties agree the amendment should be allowed, the Court will grant and the Third Amended Complaint (which has been stamped “electronically received” on 1-6-2017 (ROA 57)) is deemed filed and served as of this date. 

 

CMC is continued to 5-8-17, Dept. C13, at 8:45 am.    

 

5

 

Nikolic vs Alikhani

 

17-897786

Motion to Expunge Mechanics Lien

 

Ruling:  Off Calendar – no hearing will be held.  Continued to 4-3-17, Dept. C13, at 1:30 pm. 

 

6

Pars Publishing vs Ordway Corp

 

15-826325

 

(1) Demurrer to Amended Cross Complaint (2) Motion to Strike (3) CMC

 

Ruling:  (1-2) Off Calendar – no hearing will be held.   

 

(1) Demurrer:  Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Pars Publishing Corp dba Graphex’ (“Cross-Defendant”) Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint is CONTINUED to 4-18-17, Dept. C13, at 2 pm. Cross-Defendant failed to file a Declaration as required by the Court’s 2-7-17 Minute Order by 3-15-17 –   Nine Court days prior to the continued hearing date of 3-28-17.  The parties were ORDERED to meet and confer and Moving Party was to file a declaration informing the Court as to what issues, if any, remained on the Demurrer.

 

Cross-Defendant is to file said Declaration within the next 5-Court days. The failure to do so will result in the Court taking the Demurrer off-calendar.

 

Moving Party is to give notice.

 

(2) Motion to Strike:  Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Pars Publishing Corp dba Graphex’ (“Cross-Defendant”) Motion to Strike and the CMC are likewise CONTINUED to 4-18-17, Dept. C13, at 2 pm, to be heard with the Demurrer.

 

Moving Party is to give notice.

 

7

Pratt vs Tresor Investments

 

14-739353

(1) Demurrer to Second Amended Cross-Complaint (2) Motion to Dismiss

 

Ruling:  Off Calendar – no hearing will be held.  (1) Cross-Defendants Tresor Investments, LLC; John Michael Fischbeck; Daniel Hill and Craig Myers’ Demurrer to the SAXC of Kenneth John Fischbeck is off calendar for failing to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 and this Court’s Order of 2-7-17.

 

(2) Cross-Defendants Laguna Crest Enterprises, Inc, Kenneth John Fishbeck and American Contractors Indemnity Company’s Motion to Dismiss the Cross-Complaint of Tresor Investments, LLC is continued to 4-11-17, Dept. C13, at 2 pm.   Because the Court has already permitted a continuance to enable the LLC to effect reinstatement to defend itself in Court, and there has been no showing of reinstatement to date, the Court intends to grant the motion should Tresor Investment LLC fail to obtain reinstatement by the continued hearing date.

 

The Clerk is to give notice.

 

8

Mayorga vs. Harbor Villa Care Center

 

14-750381

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal

 

Ruling:  Off Calendar – no hearing will be held.  Defendant Harbor Villa Care Center’s unopposed Motion to Vacate Dismissal is GRANTED.

 

Moving papers were timely and properly filed, and this motion is unopposed.  The court grants the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) in that the dismissal appears to be in excess of the court’s vestigial jurisdiction. 

 

The ADR Review Hearing is reset for 4-18-17. Dept. C13, at 8:45 am.

 

Prevailing party is to give notice.

 

9

Lam vs Lam

 

16-851440

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

 

Ruling:  Off Calendar – no hearing will be held.  Continued to 4-3-17, Dept. C13, at 1:30 pm. 

 

10

Nhu vs Stines 

 

16-852879

(1) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Irogs (2) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Irogs (3) Motion to Compel Production (4) Motion to Compel Responses to RFAs

 

Ruling:  Off Calendar per MP – no hearing will be held. 

 

11

Davis vs. Anaheim City School District

 

16-873602

Motion for Discovery

 

Ruling:  Off Calendar – no hearing will be held.  Continued to 4-3-17, Dept. C13, at 1:30 pm. 

 

12

Peggy Tanous  vs. Nationstar Mortgage

 

16-873602

(1) OSC re Preliminary Injunction (2) CMC

 

Ruling:  (1-2) Off Calendar – no hearing will be held.  Plaintiff Peggy Tanous’ Application for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED, without prejudice.

 

Defendant Clear Recon Corp. has not yet appeared, and therefore the OSC must be served in the same manner as a summons and complaint. (CRC 3.1150(a).)  There is no indication that Defendant Clear Recon Corp. was served at all with the ex parte papers and of the OSC re Preliminary Injunction.  The Proof of Service of the ex parte papers only reflects service on Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC’s counsel of record. 

 

In addition, Plaintiff has not filed a Proof of Service showing that the moving papers and notice of the TRO and OSC re Preliminary Injunction were personally served on both Defendants Clear Recon Corp. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC pursuant to the court’s 3-15-17 Minute Order.

 

In light of the servicing defects, the TRO is dissolved and the Application for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED without prejudice. 

 

CMC is continued to 4-24-17, Dept. C13, at 8:45 am. 

 

Prevailing party is to give notice.

 

13

 

 

14

 

 

15

 

 

16

 

 

17  

 

 

18