DEMURRER TO THE PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE (CCP §1085)
June 16, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 31 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 8 26-CIV-00963 ROBSON GONCALVES DE OLIVEIRA VS. CITY OF BURLINGAME
ROBSON GONCALVES DE OLIVEIRA PRO SE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUSAN A. DENARDO
DEMURRER TO THE PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE (CCP §1085)
TENTATIVE RULING:
The court continues Respondent City of Burlingame’s (Burlingame) demurrer to Petitioner Robson Goncalves de Oliveira’s petition for peremptory writ of mandate to July 28, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department 4. The clerk of the court is to provide notice to all parties. The clerk of the court is also to set a case management conference for September 8, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 4 and to provide notice to all parties.
On March 12, 2026, Burlingame filed and served its demurrer and stated in the notice that the hearing was on April 14, 2026. The clerk’s office, due to the court’s impacted calendar, changed the hearing date to June 16, 2026. Burlingame did not provide notice by federal express of this new date until June 2, 2026, which is not sufficient notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005.) This court does not have jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question. (Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204–1205) Accordingly, the court continues the hearing to provide petitioner with proper notice of the hearing and the statutory time to file an opposition.
If the tentative is not contested, it will become the order of the court without the need for a formal order.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”