DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2005-1-CV-035295·santaclara·Civil·Order of Examination
Hearing about 2 months agoSTAYED

Sharon Biagi v. Malcolm Durham

Order of Examination

Hearing date
Jun 26, 2026
Department
16
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSharon Biagi
DefendantMalcolm Durham

Ruling

9:01 2005-1-CV- Sharon Biagi Hearing: Order of Examination 2 035295 v. Malcolm Durham On August 13, 2025, the Court Ordered Defendant Judgment Debtor Malcolm Durham to appear personally in Department 16 to give information regarding a money judgment against him on September 17, 2025 at 9:01 AM in Department 16 (the “Order of Examination”), which hearing was continued to January 23, 2026 at 9:01 AM in Department 16 for this Examination.

Next, at the January 23, 2026 hearing, at the request of Defendant’s counsel, the Court agreed to continue this Examination until June 26, 2026 to allow the Court to first resolve Defendant’s Motion to Vacate the Renewal of Judgment then set for hearing on May 1, 2026.

Next, on March 6, 2026, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s Order of December 17, 2025 Granting Motion to Charge Defendant’s Membership Interest in Vida Capital Group.

Now because issues now on appeal before the Sixth Appellate District substantially overlap with issues that would be covered during this Examination, it is appropriate to stay this Examination until after the appeal is complete.

Accordingly, the Court orders this Hearing for Examination STAYED until the appeal is complete. After the appeal is complete, Plaintiff Judgment Creditor may serve a Notice resetting this Hearing for Examination in Department 16.

SO ORDERED.

9:01 3

3

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share