Motion for Temporary Stay of Execution for Writ of Possession
Defendants’ Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request For Production of Documents.
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion For Order Establishing Admission for Defendants Alan Boyer and Franiaz Mostafavi to Requests for Admission (Set One) be and hereby is granted and that the truth of all specified matters, and the genuineness of all specified documents, in the First Set of Requests for Admissions, propounded by Plaintiff and served on Defendants on June 26, 2026, be deemed admitted.
The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants’ Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request For Production of Documents is GRANTED. Defendant is hereby ordered to serve full and complete verified responses, without objection to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, within 5 days of service of notice hereto. Defendant is hereby ordered to serve full and complete verified responses, without objection to Special Interrogatories, within 5 days of service of notice hereto.
The Court orders the Defendants, Alan Doyer and Farinaz Mostafavi, forthwith to pay sanctions in the amount of $640 to the Plaintiff. This sum shall be made payable to "Jackson Tidus, A Law Corporation" within 5 business days and shall be delivered to 2030 Main Street, Suite 1500, Irvine, CA 92614.
The Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this Court’s order. 9 30-2026-01569647 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion for Temporary Due Tran, Trustee of Stay of Execution for Writ of Possession Pending Hearing on Verified the MDRLL Trust vs. Petition for Relief from Forfeiture (CCP section 1179) and Plaintiff’s Bintliff Opposition.
The Court takes Judicial Notice of the 7/13/2026 Minute Order and the 6/23/2026 Minute Order.
This matter was set for a Court Trial on 6/23/2026 in which the Defendant did not appear. After reviewing the evidence presented, the Court found judgment for the Plaintiff. On 7/13/2026 the Court denied the Defendant’s Ex Pare Application for Stay of Execution of Judgment.
The Court finds that the Defendant failed to meet it’s burden under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1179. Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
The Court Clerk is to notify the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to proceed with the lockout.
The Plaintiff is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling. 10 30-2026-01570309 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Mycorn vs. Velasquez Unlawful Detainer Or In the Alternative, for Relief from Forfeiture and Grace Time to Vacate (ROA 7) and Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 21).
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?”
The Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. A Motion to Dismiss is an improper responsive pleading after being served with a complaint regarding an unlawful detainer. Pursuant to California Code of Civil