Martin Miller, M.D. v. James Hann et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: September 1, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

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

Line 6 25CV464552 Martin Miller, Defendant James Hann’s motion to quash service of summons. (Code Civ. M.D. v. James Proc., § 418.10.) Notice is proper and the motion is unopposed. The original Hann et al. proof of service of summons was defective because there was no declaration of diligence. Although plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion, he filed a new proof of service of summons on August 27, 2026, indicating service on an office manager (“Trisha Doe”) at the address for the Hann Law Firm.

That proof of service of summons indicates the process server attempted personal service on three occasions, and that a copy of the summons and complaint were thereafter mailed to defendant Hann. Based on that supplemental information, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Any challenge to the sufficiency of the August 2026 proof of service of summons must occur by separate motion. The court will prepare the order. Line 7 25CV476927 Fidelity National Interpleader Fidelity National Title Company’s motion for order of Title Company discharge. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 386.) Interpleader does not seek attorney fees v. YNOT related to the motion. Notice is proper and the motion is unopposed. Investments, Interpleader served all defendants with the summons and complaint. All LLC et al, defendants have answered the complaint, asserting interests in the $10,000 deposited by interpleader. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Super Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The motion is GRANTED.

Moving party to submit proposed order. Line 8 26CV488244 Romit Click LINE 8 or scroll down for ruling. Chakraborty, PHD v. PsiQuantum Corp. et al.

- oo0oo -

4