Motion to set order to show cause hearing regarding contempt
thus does not allow sufficient time for Respondent to respond to the petition. The court therefore will CONTINUE the hearing as stated above to ensure Respondent is given sufficient statutory notice. Counsel for Petitioner shall give notice of this ruling to all interested parties and file a proof of service thereof at least five court days prior to the hearing. Such notice shall be given both by mailing and posting at the property.
10. Anderson vs. Nordstrom, Inc. 2025-01534989 Please see the above notice regarding oral argument on June 25. 2026
Before the court is the verified petition to preserve evidence filed by petitioner Yvonne Anderson (Anderson) on December 19, 2025. As more fully set forth below, the petition is DENIED.
A Petition to preserve evidence under Code of Civil Procedure section 2035.010 et seq. must be served in the manner provided for service of summons. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2035.040, subd. (a).) No proof of service reflecting valid service, or any service whatsoever, on respondent Nordstrom, Inc. (Nordstrom), however, has been filed in this case.
Moreover, a notice of hearing must be served on the expected adverse party at least 20 days before the date set for the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2035.040, subd. (c).) No such notice has been filed here, nor any proof of service reflecting notice.
In addition, the Petition fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2035.030, subdivision (b)(2), as Anderson has not shown why she was presently unable to bring the intended action. The petition also appears to be inconsistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 2035.010, subdivision (b), which prohibits the use of section 2035.010, et seq. for purposes of either ascertaining the possible existence of a cause of action or defense to it, or of identifying those who might be made parties to an action not yet filed.
Indeed, Nordstrom has expressly assured Anderson that it has preserved all surveillance footage. Based on the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. Anderson’s counsel is ordered to serve notice of this ruling.
11. Naama vs. Dubai Holdings, LLC Please see the above notice regarding oral argument on June 25. 2026
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?”
2025-01523991 Before the court is a motion to set an order to show cause hearing regarding contempt against Michelle Fonseca- Kamama, Esq., and Michael Caspino, Esq., filed by plaintiff Esra Naama (Plaintiff). As more fully set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff requests the court set an order to show cause as counsel’s alleged failure or refusal to comply with a writ of execution and turn over certain funds in counsel’s trust account which may otherwise be used to satisfy a sister state judgment issued in Plaintiff’s favor. Although the court may issue such an order, the court declines to do so in this instance.
Counsel has produced evidence showing the Wyoming judgment on which the sister state judgment and writ of execution are based has been vacated by the Wyoming court that issued it. (Caspino Decl. ¶¶ 8-10, Exh. A; Fonseca-Kamana Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not file any reply to respond to these representations.
As it appears the judgment and writ of execution on which this motion is based are no longer enforceable based on the underlying Wyoming judgment being vacated, the court DENIES this motion.
Based on the Wyoming judgment being set aside, the court sets an OSC as to why the sister state judgment in this case should not be vacated and these proceedings dismissed without prejudice to future proceedings depending on the outcome of the Wyoming case. The OSC is set for MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2026, AT 9:30 A.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23. The clerk is directed to give notice of this ruling.
12. City of Orange vs. Leon 2008-00114884 Please see the above notice regarding oral argument on June 25. 2026
Before the court is the continued hearing on the motion of Kenneth Jacobsen, as trustee of So Cal Family Irrevocable Investment Trust (Jacobsen), for leave to file a complaint in intervention and to vacate or clarify the injunctive order executed on January 27, 2010. As more fully set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
By this motion, Jacobsen seeks to intervene in the case as a matter of right pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (d)(1). Jacobsen seeks to intervene to challenge the stipulated permanent injunction and judgment entered in this action on or about January 10, 2027. Among other things, the injunction prohibits certain uses of the property located at 7418 E. Grovewood Lane in the City of Orange, including