CITY OF SAN MATEO VS KAREN GRIGORIAN, ET AL

July 29, 2026, Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ 2:00 PM - LINE 11 CIV475201 CITY OF SAN MATEO VS KAREN GRIGORIAN, ET AL

CITY OF SAN MATEO MELISSA H. KEYES IRINA KHACHATOURIAN GEORGE S. WYNNS

MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Karen Grigorian and Irina (Khachatourian) Grigorians’ Motion for Declaratory Relief is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff City of San Mateo’s (City) Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (Evid Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

On January 13, 2026, the court issued an order denying defendants Karen Grigorian’s and Irina Grigorian’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment under Code of Civil Procedure, section 683.160. On March 5, 2026, defendants filed a Motion for Declaratory Relief. Defendants objected to the “service of the Notice of Renewal that the City of San Mateo filed on or about August 16, 2019” and sought an order “stating that the attempted service on that date was invalid.”

On March 16, 2026, defendants filed a notice of appeal. Defendants are appealing the court’s January 13, 2026 order. The City’s Motion to dismiss that appeal was denied. (See City’s RJN.)

While defendants’ appeal is pending, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear matters relating to the court’s order and the underlying facts and circumstances. (Code Civ. Proc., § 916.)

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.