HAMID KHAZAELI VS. DAVID A BREWER, ET AL

July 17, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar

HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ 9:00 AM Line 5 24-CIV-00269 HAMID KHAZAELI VS. DAVID A BREWER, ET AL

HAMID KHAZAELI PRO SE DAVID A BREWER JOHN S. CLAASSEN

“Doe” Defendants’ Motion to Strike Doe Amendments and First Amended Complaint (C.C.P. § 435, 436 & C.C. § 1714.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion filed by Robert Polychron, erroneously also sued as Robert Polychron Business, Aragon Management, LLC, Carol DePond, Claassen Law Corp., Susan V. Chamberlain, and John Claassen (“Doe Defendants”) to strike each Doe Amendment that was filed against them on or around July 9, 2025 in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is DENIED without prejudice. Because the motion is denied the Court DECLINES to rule on defendant’s concurrently filed request for judicial notice.

Here, Plaintiff, who is proceeding in propria persona, has not filed a consent to electronic service in this action, as noted in his limited and special opposition. The proof of service in the Court’s file indicates service upon Plaintiff was made only by electronic service. (See Cal. Rules of Court rule 2.251(c)(3)(B) [self-represented parties are to be served by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent].) Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the CRC. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be filed or e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.