Freidrik Ternian v. Ninos Ternian

To access a tentative ruling, move your cursor over the line number, hold down the “Control” key and click. If you see last week’s tentative rulings, you have checked prior to the posting of the current week’s tentative rulings. You will need to either “REFRESH” or “QUIT” your browser and reopen it. Another suggestion is to “clean the cache” of your browser. Finally, you may have to switch browsers. If you fail to do any of these, your browser may pull up old information from old cookies even after the tentative rulings have been posted.

This Court's tentative ruling is just that—tentative. Trial courts are not bound by their tentative rulings, which are superseded by the final order. (See Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1374-1375.) The tentative ruling allows a party to focus his or her arguments at a subsequent hearing and to attempt to convince the Court the tentative should or should not become the Court's final order. (Cowan v. Krayzman (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 907, 917.) If you wish to challenge a tentative ruling, please refer to a specific portion of the tentative ruling to which you disagree.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING

LINE 1 23CV418654 Freidrik Ternian v. Ninos Ternian Motion Of Ninos Ternian For Dismissal For Delay In Prosecution (Code of Civil Procedure, § 583.120(b).) NO TENTATIVE RULING. The parties may appear and argue the matter on the merits. Counsel for Plaintiff obtained a substitution of Freidrik Ternian, (now deceased) in favor of Souzi Ternian. Counsel for Plaintiff is also seeking to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”

LINE 2 24CV438701 James Bodwin v. Valerie Chan Motion of Defendant and Cross-Complainants Persimmons, Inc., Valerie Chan, and Eugene Feinberg for Summary Judgment. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of the first, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of the second, fifth, eleventh, and thirteenth causes of action. SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”