473-475 GRAND AVE LLC VS. ARTURO PEREZ, ET AL

7/16/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 20 of 21

UD LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2026

2:00 PM LINE: 1 26-UDL-00079 473-475 GRAND AVE LLC VS. ARTURO PEREZ, ET AL

473-475 GRAND AVE LLC JOANNA KOZUBAL ARTURO PEREZ PRO SE

PLAINTIFF 473-475 GRAND AVE LLC’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PER CCP 664.6 AND FOR JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

TENTATIVE RULING: _________________________________________________________________________________________ For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation, filed by Plaintiff 473-475 Grand Ave, LLC (“Plaintiff”), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

First, Plaintiff has not established proper service of the motion on Defendants Arturo Perez and Rubenia Elizabeth Zuniga (“Defendants”). The proof of service states that both Defendants were served electronically at a single email address: andrewperez2129@gmail.com. Defendants are self-represented, and the Court’s records contain no evidence that either Defendant expressly consented to electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(2), (3).) Electronic filing alone does not constitute express consent to electronic service. (Id., subd. (c)(3)(ii).) Moreover, even if electronic service were authorized, Plaintiff has not established that this single email address is a valid electronic service address for both Defendants.

Second, the notice of motion does not state the courthouse address for Department 2. The first page of each paper must specify the date, time, and location, if ascertainable, of the scheduled hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(b)(1).) The notice is therefore deficient.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it will become the order of the Court. Because Defendants are self-represented, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare, serve, and submit a proposed order that repeats this tentative ruling verbatim, in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and San Mateo County Superior Court Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv). Plaintiff shall provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law.