DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV421976·santaclara·Civil·Contract / Cost Dispute
Hearing about 2 months agoDENIED without prejudice

Community Education Foundation vs George Eshoo et al

Motion to Tax Cost

Hearing date
Jul 21, 2026
Department
1
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Tax Costs rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCommunity Education Foundation
DefendantGeorge Eshoo
Defendant32 & Bruce Partners, LLC

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: July 21, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS LINE 2 23CV416519 Linda Lisner vs City Motion for Order for Admissions Deemed Admitted & Sanctions of San Jose et al Scroll down to Line 2 for Tentative Ruling. LINE 3 23CV421976 Community Motion to Tax Cost Education OFF CALENDAR. On December 10, 2025, Defendants’ 32 & Bruce Foundation vs Partners, LLC and George Eshoo (“Defendants”) filed a joint notice of a George Eshoo et al motion to strike or tax plaintiff Community Education Foundation (“CEF”)’s amended memorandum of prejudgment costs; and request for attorney’s fees and sanctions.

Defendants did not file a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion, Declaration in support, or any other supporting papers. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires that the moving papers must be served at least 16 court days prior to the hearing date. California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1112 requires that a motion be accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, support Declaration and exhibits, and proof of service. Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that the defendants have failed to serve supporting papers.

On July 17, 2026, moving party filed a motion to withdraw the motion. Due to the number of procedural violations, the defendants motion is DENIED without prejudice. LINE 4 24CV442732 Rolan Estrada vs Motion to Appoint Appraiser to Determine Fair Market Value Ron Estrada Scroll down to Line 4 for Tentative Ruling.

LINE 5 24CV448023 Itria Ventures LLC Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs et al vs Shivendra Scroll down to Line 5 for Tentative Ruling. Basnet et al LINE 6 24CV451194 Anson Vasquez vs Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request Tyler Stayskal et al for Production of Documents, Set One; and Sanctions Scroll down to Line 6 for Tentative Ruling.

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