Jiaboa Huang vs. Xiaotian Zhou, et.al.

LINE CASE NO. CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING 9:00 21CV385573 1200 Partners, LLC vs Plaintiff moves this court for relief from dismissal pursuant to CCP 473. Plaintiff 1 Golden State missed court dates due to not receiving notice of dates of hearings. Defendant did Brewery, et.al. file objections to this motion. Plaintiff’s lack of appearances were due to excusable mistake under CCP 473. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

9:00 21CV390666 Eric Hartman vs. Defendant moves this court to award attorney fees and costs. Defendant was the 2-4 Koshy George prevailing party. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Court seeks oral argument regarding amount of sanctions.

9:00 22CV398677 Santa Clara Valley Plaintiff moves this to make a legal issue determination that defendants are not 5 Transportation entitled to abandonment damages. Plaintiff argues that abandonment damages Authority vs. Loida require a physical ejectment. The statute doe not appear to require this. Kirkley Defendant used the property, even though it was not their first residence. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

9:00 23CV424190 AI Technology vs. Plaintiff petitions this court to order further responses from Defendant in Special 6-7 Renasas Electronics Interrogatory Sets 1 and 2. This court finds that from Set 1, Interrogatory No. 1, 2, America 3, 5, 8, 9, 10. 11 were complied with by Defendant. This court finds that Interrogatory No. 4, is relevant and sufficiently particular. This court finds that Interrogatory No. 4, 6, and 12 is relevant and should be responded to by Defendant. This court finds that from Set 2, Interrogatory No. 26-40 are relevant.

The petition to order further responses from Special Interrogatories Set 1, Nol 1,2,3,8, 9, 10, and 11 are DENIED. The petition to order further responses from Special Interrogatory Set 1, No. 4, 6, and 12 are GRANTED. The petition to order further responses from Set 2, No 26-40 are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for monetary damages is DENIED.

Defendant moves this court to order further responses from Defendant’s special interrogatory Set No.

7. This court finds that Special Interrogatory No. 251, No. 252, 253, 254, 255, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264 are sufficiently complied with. This court finds that Special Interrogatory No. 256 is relevant and not overbroad considering that the Plaintiff is accusing Defendant of stealing trade secrets but admits that other parties also had gained access to its web interface. No. 257 is relevant as it limits its search to documents agreed to by Defendant’s employees. No. 265, 266 are overbroad and not relevant. No. 267 does not appear to be a complete response.

The Defendant’s petition to compel further responses from Plaintiff for Special Interrogatory Set No. 7 Nos. 256, 257, and 267 are GRANTED. The Defendant’s petition to compel further responses from Plaintiff for Special Interrogatory Set No. 7 Nos. 251-255, 258-266 are DENIED. Defendant’s motion for monetary sanctions is DENIED.