Yevgeniy Tilman et al vs Ruby Dobry et al

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: August 27, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 9:00 A.M. LINE 1 17CV315304 Capital One Bank Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment (USA), N.A. vs Scroll down to Line 1 for Tentative Ruling. Juan Campos

LINE 2 23CV427373 Sikh Gurdwara- Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication San Jose OFF CALENDAR. On January 8, 2026, Defendant Surinder Sangha filed (California) vs this motion for summary adjudication. On February 13, 2026, the Surinder Sangha Honorable Jose Franco issued an Order granting a permanent injunction against Defendant Sangha after the matter proceeded to trial. Thus, this motion is rendered MOOT. LINE 3 24CV454891 Janae Scales et al Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication vs Ford Motor Scroll down to Line 3 for Tentative Ruling. Company et al LINE 4 25CV456790 William Motion for Terminating Sanctions Backstrand et al vs Scroll down to Line 4 for Tentative Ruling. Vincent Braga et al

LINE 5 25CV462475 Monica Ramos et Motion for Leave to File al vs Angela Scroll down to Line 5 for Tentative Ruling. Pollard, MD et al LINES 25CV477274 Yevgeniy Tilman et Motion to Strike (Line # 6); Motion to Strike (Line # 7); 6-8 al vs Ruby Dobry Lines # 7-8 OFF CALENDAR. On April 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a First et al Amended Complaint rendering the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP special motion to strike filed on January 21, 2026 (Line # 6) and Motion to Strike filed on December 12, 2025 (Line # 7) as MOOT.

Motion for Protective Order (Line # 8) Scroll down to Line #8 for Tentative Ruling.

- oo0oo –

E. LIABILITY OF CHRISTINE MARIE KULLE, NP In opposition, the Pollard Defendants separately contend that Plaintiffs’ evidence does not demonstrate that Kulle is liable for fraud. Plaintiffs’ evidence establishes that Kulle was not physically working in Dr. Pollard’s office on May 5, 2023, and the evidence does not demonstrate that Kulle knew of a material abnormality and intentionally concealed the same. (Declaration of Monica, ¶ 6; Declaration of Haberkorn, Exh. I [Kulle’s Responses to Special Interrogatories], pp. 2:19-3:3, 6:25-7:20). The motion is denied as to Defendant Kulle.

IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is DENIED as to defendant Christine Marie Kulle.

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend to add allegations supporting a punitive damages claim for the breach of fiduciary duty causes of action is DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend to add allegations supporting a punitive damages claim for the medical battery and intentional misrepresentation cause of action against defendants Angela Michelle Pollard, M.D., Angela M. Pollard MD Inc., Above Parr Women’s Center, and Pollard Wellness, Inc. is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs shall file the proposed third amended complaint in accordance with ten (10) days of this order.

The Court will prepare the formal Order.

Calendar Line # 8 Case Name Yevgeniy Tilman et al vs Ruby Dobry et al Case No. 25CV477274 Motion for Protective Order (Line # 8)

I. BACKGROUND This case arises from a fraud and breach of contracts claim, Plaintiffs Los Gatos Therapy Center, WK Medical Group, Yevgeniy Tilman, and Bruce Melvin Wermuth (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Ruby Dobry, individually, and as the Special Administrator of the Estate of Yuriy Dobry (collectively “Defendants”) on October 10, 2025. On April 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging six causes of actions: (1) fraud- intentional misrepresentation; (2) fraud- negligent misrepresentation; (3) fraud- concealment; (4) declaratory relief; (5) breach of contract; and (6) breach of contract. Prior to the Plaintiffs filing its FAC, Defendants filed an Anti-SLAPP and Motion to Strike. Those motions were rendered moot upon Plaintiffs’ filing of the FAC.

On December 17, 2025, Defendants filed this present motion for protective order and stay of discovery. The motion included a notice of motion, motion, and Declaration of Ruby Dobry (totaling 5 pages).

II. PROCEDURAL VIOLATION The Defendants’ motion for protective order was not accompanied by a proof of service. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires that a moving party must provide proof of service of the motion. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c) provides that a proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing. Given this procedural violation and the absence of an opposition motion or waiver of notice, the Court cannot consider the substance of this motion.

Defendants’ also request for a stay on all discovery pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to strike the Complaint in its entirety. The Court notes that this issue is moot as Defendants’ motion to strike filed on December 12, 2025 and its anti-SLAPP motion filed on January 21, 2026 was rendered moot upon the Plaintiffs’ filing of the FAC on April 20, 2026.

III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the motion for protective order and stay on discovery is DENIED. The Court will prepare the formal Order.

17