| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
Motion to Tax Costs
# Case Name Tentative 50 Trinh vs. Nguyen
22-01279860 Motion for Entry of Order on Discovery Referee’s Final Rulings
Plaintiff Hoi Trinh’s motion for an order entering the Final Rulings of discovery referee Hon. Robert J. Moss (Ret.) subject to Plaintiff’s objections is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The court has reviewed the Final Rulings issued by the discovery referee, Robert J. Moss (Ret.), Plaintiff’s objections, the parties’ responses to the objections, as well as other documents as necessary. “The court has broad discretion to determine the best method for considering a party’s challenges to the referee’s findings, and the court is not required to hold a hearing or conduct a de novo analysis of the underlying arguments. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 644, subd. (b); Marathon Nat. Bank v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1261.) In its review, the court should give the referee’s findings “ ‘great weight’ ” and focus on the parties’ objections to those findings. (In re Marriage of Petropoulos (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 161, 176)” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 589.)
After an independent review and consideration of all the papers currently before it, the court overrules Plaintiff’s objections. The court adopts the discovery referee’s Final Rulings dated February 10, 2026 and filed March 5, 2026 (ROA 502) as this court’s ruling on the discovery motions.
Defendant to give notice of this ruling.
51 The Lab, LLC vs. Strathmore Custom Homes, Inc
20-01128098 Motion to Tax Costs
CONTINUED TO AUGUST 7 TH, 2026 AT 10:00 A.M. IN DEPT. C16
52 Sierra Auto Properties vs. IBC Firm Inc.
25-01534089 Motion - Other
Plaintiff moves for an order permitting service of the summons and complaint on Defendant IBC Firm Inc. through the California Secretary of State pursuant to Corporations Code section 1702, subdivision (a). The Motion is GRANTED.
Extracted by Gemini Flash 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
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.
Corporations Code section 1702, subdivision (a) provides:
If an agent for the purpose of service of process has resigned and has not been replaced or if the agent designated cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the address designated for personally delivering the process, or if no agent has been designated, and it is shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that process against a domestic corporation cannot be served with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent by hand in the manner provided in Section 415.10, subdivision (a) of Section 415.20 or subdivision (a) of Section 415.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure or upon the corporation in the manner provided in subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 416.10 or subdivision (a) of Section 416.20 of the Code of