Motion to Determine Fair Market Value, etc. (Status Conference)
The declaration filed in support of the motion states that a “copy of the proof of service [showing personal service on the client] will be filed with the court at least 5 days before hearing.” (Decl. in Support, ¶ 3(a)(1) [ROA 26].) No such proof of service has been filed.
The deadline to file a proof of service has passed. Rule 3.1300(c) of the California Rules of Court requires that a proof of service of the moving papers be filed with the court no later than five court days before the date set for hearing. That deadline passed on 7/10/26.
Moving Attorney to give notice.
3 Tran vs. Studio RSR Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record (x3)
The court GRANTS attorney KAVEH NEWMEN’s (of NEWMEN LAW) unopposed Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel for Defendants (1) STUDIO RSR, (2) ROBERT ROBLES, and (3) RSR DESIGN GROUP LLC.
The court finds moving attorney meets the requirements set forth in Rule 3.1362 of the California Rules of Court.
The orders shall not become effective until the filing of a proof of service showing service of the order on the client.
Moving attorney to give notice and file proof(s) of service within 14 days.
7 Ernesto Rojas Motion to Determine Fair Market Value, etc. trustee of The (Status Conference) Rojas Living Trust Dated August 2021 1. Motion to Determine Fair Market Value, Etc. vs. All persons unknown, claiming No Tentative. The referee and parties should be prepared any legal or to discuss the following at the hearing: equitable right, etc. Court-Appointed Partition Referee LUIS GALLEGOS moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 874.311 et
seq., also known as the Partition of Real Property Act (the “Act”). The Act “applies to actions for partition of real property filed on or after January 1, 2023” (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.311(c), emphasis supplied) and includes a procedure by which cotenants may buy out the interests of the cotenant requesting partition by sale.
The Act does not appear to apply here, as this action was filed on 5/24/22, i.e., this action was filed before January 2023.
Instead, the sale procedures set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 873.510 et seq. apply to this partition sale, as reflected in the Interlocutory Judgment issued 7/28/25.
Status Conference
No Tentative.
8 Audenis vs. Motion for Order Authorizing Limited Early Discovery patrickaudenis.com The court DENIES Plaintiff PATRICK AUDENIS’s motion for a court “order authorizing limited early discovery for the purpose of identifying the anonymous Doe defendant(s) in this action.”
It remains unclear why Plaintiff needs to have an order from this court to have discovery. (See 1/30/26 and 4/17/26 Minute Orders.) Generally, a plaintiff does not need leave of court to serve subpoenas on third parties. Any discovery “stay” at the outset of an action applies to parties, not nonparties. Discovery holds and cutoffs do not restrict a party’s ability to conduct informal investigations, including contacting nonparty witnesses, obtaining public records, or otherwise gathering information from third parties (See Pullin v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1165, fn. 4; County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 819, 829.)
As Plaintiff is currently self-represented, he cannot himself issue a subpoena. The only persons authorized by law to
4
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”