Sarah Stel et al. v. Kevin Ebrahimi

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 3, 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 4 25CV481056 Sarah Stel et al. Defendant Kevin Ebrahimi’s motion to stay proceedings. Notice is proper v. Kevin and the motion is opposed by plaintiffs. The motion is based on the court’s Ebrahimi inherent authority to stay proceedings. A trial court “ ‘has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice.’ ” (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141.) Defendant argues the matter should be stayed pending resolution of an appeal in a related unlawful detainer case.

Defendant argues the judgment in the unlawful detainer matter may have preclusive effect over some or all of plaintiffs’ causes of action in this matter. But “a judgment in unlawful detainer usually has very limited res judicata effect and will not prevent one who is dispossessed from bringing a subsequent action to resolve questions of title [citations] or to adjudicate other legal and equitable claims between the parties.” (Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 255; Struiksma v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 546, 555.)

And defendant’s reply represents that the appeal could be resolved by “early 2027.” The motion to stay is DENIED. The court will prepare the order. Line 5 25CV482551 Marzieh Najafi Defendant BG-IC, LLC’s demurrer to the complaint. Notice is not proper. v. BG-IC, LLC. The proof of service indicates service by email. But the self-represented plaintiff has not expressly consented to electronic service in this action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c).) And the proof service indicates service on an email address that does not match plaintiff’s email address (agp_mg@yahoo.com instead of agp_mn@yahoo.com).

The matter is CONTINUED to November 19, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 10 to allow for proper service. Defendant must serve the demurrer, an updated notice, and all supporting documents by U.S. Mail and email to plaintiff’s correct addresses. Line 6 26CV483963 Thomas Click LINE 6 or scroll down for ruling. Chapman v. City of Los Altos

3