In re: 18255 Clemson Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210

DATE: June 25, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 4 25CV468241 In re: 18255 Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. Clemson Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Line 5 26CV487480 Xinyao Zhou v. Click LINE 5 or scroll down for ruling. Yan Ren et al. Line 6 21CV376809 Travelers Property Defendant Indian Harbor Insurance Company’s motion for summary Casualty of adjudication. Based on a notice of settlement, the matter is taken OFF America v. CALENDAR. Plaintiff Traveler’s Property Casualty Company of Critchfield America is ordered to inform the court no later than July 1, 2026, Mechanical, Inc. et regarding whether the summary judgment reservation set for October 8, al. 2026, will remain on calendar.

- oo0oo -

9:01 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 26CV486250 Megan Weldon v. Application of Matthew D. Gorman to appear pro hac vice for defendant Cortex Applications, Cortex Applications, Inc. No objection filed. Good cause appearing, Inc. the application is GRANTED. Moving party to submit proposed order. Line 2 2010-1-CV- N. Madrigal v. S. Order of examination. Parties ordered to appear. 184285 Mann Line 3 2010-1-CV- N. Madrigal v. S. Order to show cause re failure to appear by judgment debtor. Parties 184285 Mann ordered to appear.

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 4 Case Name: In re: 18255 Clemson Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 Case No.: 25CV468241

Claimant Ruchun Yang’s motion to set aside order due to inadvertence. Notice is not proper; no proof of service was filed. Claimant Yuhua Jin opposes the motion.

This matter involves surplus funds deposited with the clerk of court under Civil Code section 2924j arising out of a foreclosure sale of property at 18255 Clemson Avenue, Saratoga California. (The court derives this procedural background from its Order re: Claim for Surplus Funds, filed Nov. 13, 2025. The court takes judicial notice of that order on its own motion. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Yang filed a motion to claim the funds, and Jin filed a competing claim. Jin submitted argument and evidence, contending that she was entitled to the full amount of the surplus funds.

Yang did not file “any evidence or arguments to rebut Jin’s claim of seniority.” (11/13/25 Order at 2:16-17.) The court “determine[d] that Jin is entitled to the entire amount deposited with the clerk of court. Jin’s claim is granted, Yang’s claim is denied, and Palm Street Capital LLC and Yu have not filed any timely claim.” (Id. at p. 3:8- 10.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) gives trial courts discretion to relieve a party from an order “taken against the party through the party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” But that section is not a “ ‘ “catch-all remedy for every case of poor judgment.” ’ ” (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1206.) Relief under that section is appropriate only “ ‘where a party is unexpectedly placed in a situation to his injury without fault or negligence of his own and against which ordinary prudence could not have guarded.’ ” (Ibid.) The party seeking relief bears the burden of proof. (Id. at p. 1205.) And self-represented litigants “are held to the same standards as attorneys.” (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.)

Yang argues an inability to find legal assistance related to the claim process. That is not an adequate basis for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Yang contends the court did not provide email notification about a tentative decision in this matter, and that the court’s practice of posting tentative decisions did not provide adequate time to respond. The court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308, and Santa Clara County Superior Court local rule 8.D regarding tentative decisions.

There is no indication the court deviated from those rules with the tentative decision in this case. Yang argues an exhibit referenced but not included in Yang’s original claim “is relevant and material.” That is not an adequate basis for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). And even if the court construed Yang’s request as a motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, the information in that exhibit does not rebut the evidence on which Jin’s claim to the funds was based.

The motion is DENIED. The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

18