Kamyar Moshfegh vs. Orville Swanston
Ex Parte Application for an Order to Consolidate or Alternatively Shorten Time
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
472, a plaintiff may amend the complaint as a matter 'of course' without leave of court if such amended pleading is filed before the answer or a hearing is held on a demurrer. Such amendments may add new parties to the action "], emphasis added.) VII. Conclusion & Order Based on the foregoing, Specially Appearing Defendant Notting Hill Music Masters, LLC's Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is GRANTED as to the request to quash the 5/20/26 Proof of Service filed in this matter. The Proof of Service filed on May 20, 2026, is hereby STRICKEN. The Court schedules an Order to Show Cause re: Proof of Service for October 15, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 512. The Court continues the Case Management Conference to October 15, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 512 of Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Moving party is ordered to give notice.
CASE NAME: Kamyar Moshfegh vs. Orville Swanston EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE OR ALTERNATIVELY SHORTEN THE TIME TO HEAR THE MOTION IS DENIED. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 166 (a)(1), the Court will not entertain oral argument for ex parte application for relief. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirement of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1202, subdivision (c), that an applicant for an ex parte order must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte. Furthermore, the Court does not find good cause to advance the hearing date. For all the foregoing reasons, the Ex Parte Application is DENIED. Moving party is to give notice. | Home -->)" -->
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”