HU v. WANG et al.

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JULY 7, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES

Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

No. 25CV03932

CITIBANK, N.A. v. CORONADO

PLAINTIFF CITIBANK N.A.’S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION (CCP § 664.6)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and the settlement agreement between the parties (RJN Exhibit B), judgment in the sum of $6,915.21 will be entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Lisa D. Coronado. The Court will sign the proposed judgment.

No. 22CV01491

HU v. WANG et al.

PLAINTIFF LIMING HU’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION (CCP § 664.6)

Parties to appear and inform the Court the results of their meet and confer related to proceeding with the settlement terms without LANDCO’s signature on the Assignment Agreement. The Court intends to grant the motion, regardless of any lack of assignment by LANDCO, pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, executed March 1, 2026, and find that the failure to acquire the LANDCO assignment is a material breach and constitutes a default under the terms of the settlement. (Braunstein Declaration, Exhibit A.)