Ahead Magnetics, Inc. v. Isense cloud, Inc.

2 To access the courtroom, click or copy and paste this link into your internet browser and scroll to Department 6: https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/online-services/remote-hearings

LINE CASE NO. CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING

9:00 1 21CV378290 Brandon Fang vs. Jack Cheng Plaintiff moves this court for attorney fees. Defendant brought a cross complaint action against Plaintiff. The cross complaint was dismissed after Plaintiff was compensated by insurance. Plaintiff is the prevailing party. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

9:00 2 23CV424190 AI Technology and Systems vs. Renasas Electronics America Defendant moves this Court to compel disposition for Qualified Expert #4. Defendant has establlshed the relevancy of the expert’s disposition to the case. Defendant’s petition is GRANTED.

9:00 3 25CV466493 Steven Noriega vs. Albertsons Companies Plaintiff petitions this Court to compel disposition. Defendant appears willing to have the witnesses requested by Plaintiff deposed by offering new contact information. Plaintiff was not willing to meet and confer. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

9:00 4 25CV472014 Tonakan Sargysan vs.Rivian Automotive See below

9:00 5 25CV474775 Rogelio Rodriguez vs. Francis Gudgin Defendant moves this court for terminating sanctions. This court granted a demand to respond to form interrogatories within 10 days on 2/3/26. Defendant never responded. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion for $555 in monetary sanctions is GRANTED.

9:00 6 25CV479082 Ahead Magnetics, Inc. v. Isense cloud,Inc. Case is continued to June 30, 2026. Plain

9:00 7 23CV479346 Immigrant Rights Defense My Thy Phung Nguyen Plaintiff petitions this court to compel defendant to answer form interrogatories. Defendant does not object. Plaintiff’s petition is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions of $660 is GRANTED.

9:00 8 25CV474448 Milz Development v. Shawn Dean Plaintiff petitions this court for a writ of attachment. Plaintiff bases its claim based on two breaches of contract, although the complaint alleges four separate contracts. At any rate, the performance of the two contracts which are the source for the writ of attachment is highly contested both as to its completion and its value. The petition for a writ of attachment is DENIED.

9:01 1 25CV458306 LVNV Funding vs. Teresa Martin Defendant’s attorney moves to be relieved as counsel. There is no opposition. Defendant’s attorney’s motion is GRANTED.