RICE, JAMES vs TERRACE AND DRIFTWOOD MHPS LLC

Good cause existing, the Court hereby GRANTS Counsel Kelly S. Moir leave to withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff Pedro Vega. The Court's order relieving Counsel shall take effect upon proof of service of same on Defendant. (CRC 3.1362). The Court will sign the Proposed Order.

CV-25-004323 - RICE, JAMES vs TERRACE AND DRIFTWOOD MHPS LLC - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - HEARING REQUIRED. Good cause existing, the Court is inclined to grant Counsel Michael Kahn's motion to be relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Jerry Rice subject to clarification as to the mode of service of this motion on Plaintiff.

CV-24-002421 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs MIRANDA, RAYMOND - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED, unopposed. The Court finds, based on a review of the evidence adduced, notably, Petitioner's Request for Admissions, Set One deemed conclusively admitted by the Court on February 20, 2026, against Real Party in Interest Raymond Miranda in this matter, and Real Party in interest's conviction on August 9, 2024, of a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351, that the Respondent property $8,909.00 U.S.

Currency was furnished or intended to be furnished by a person in exchange for a controlled substance, and/or was proceeds traceable to an exchange for a controlled substance, and/or was used or intended to be used to facilitate one or more of certain enumerated drug trafficking offenses, all of which occurred within five years of the seizure of the Respondent property, that said Respondent Property is subject to forfeiture and that Petitioner is entitled to summary judgment herein. Code of Civil Procedure Sec.”2033.410; St.

Mary v Superior Court (2014), 223 Cal.App. 4th 762. The court further finds that no triable issue of fact remains as to Petitioner's petition for forfeiture of said sum. Code of Civil Procedure section 437(c). Summary judgment is accordingly hereby granted Petitioner.

CV-25-008787 - GHAI, CHARANJIT vs CITY OF CERES CITY COUNCIL - Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court is inclined to DENY the petition for the reasons set forth below but will hear argument in this case.

Request for Judicial Notice A court may take judicial notice of the existence and authenticity of public records, official acts, and similar materials. (Evid. Code, Sec.Sec.”452, 453.) However, judicial notice does not extend to the truth of hearsay statements or disputed factual assertions contained in those materials. Nor may judicial notice be used in CEQA mandamus proceedings to introduce extra’record evidence to prove or justify an agency's decision, which must stand or fall on the administrative record before the agency at the time it acted. (See Western States Petroleum Assn. v.

Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 573-575 [discussing same]; cf. Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564-1568 [discussing general principles of judicial notice].) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Respondent's and the real-parties-in-interest's request for judicial notice solely as to the existence of the identified documents and records. However, to the extent the responding parties are seek notice of the truth of disputed matters or consideration of extra’record evidence to support the merits, the request is DENIED.

Class 32 Infill Exemption A project qualifies for the Class 32 infill exemption only if all five of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the project must be consistent with the general plan, zoning ordinance, and any applicable specific plan, including designation, density, and use; (2) the site is within city limits and located on a parcel substantially surrounded by urban uses; (3) the site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; (4) the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (5) the site is adequately served by existing utilities and public services (e.g., water, sewer, fire, police). (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, Sec. 15332.) The City can point to record evidence supporting each criterion. (See AR1033-AR1034; AR1252; AR1265;