Xingchuan Pei vs. Fanglei Liu

LINE CASE NO. CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING 9:00 21CV379107 Xingchuan Pei vs. Defendant moves this court to set aside default judgment. Defendant asserts that 1 Fanglei Liu he was not served this complaint because he had moved at the time of service from the address that is shown on the proof of service filed August 18, 2021. The proof of service was dated for April 14, 2020—an error since the case was not filed until April 5, 2021. Defendant asserts that he moved from the Ramona residence which was where the process server claims he was served in August 2020. .

Defendant asserts that he did not receive notice of judgment until he received a notice of levy on April 8, 2026. He then filed this motion on April 14, 2026. There is no opposition to this motion. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. 9:00 23CV415166 Daniel Souza vs. Dan Plaintiff moves this court to tax costs. Defendant proffered $5,967.53 for service of 2 Smith process, identifying invoices for service of deposition invoices. This category appears to be justified and will not be taxed. “Other” costs involves one invoice— medical examination of Plaintiff.

The examination is billed from the doctor’s invoice and shared with co-defendant. This category will not be taxed. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 9:00 24CV432080 Serenity MSO vs. Palo Defendant Palo Alto Mind Body moves this court to grant a stay of legal 3 Alto Mind Body, et.al. proceedings pending an appellate court decision. In this case, Defendant Palo Alto Mind Body moved this court to disqualify counsel because current counsel for Plaintiff Serenity had privileged emails in his possession at the time they were sent.

The court denied Defendant’s motion deeming that Plaintiff’s attorney at the time had a joint privilege to the emails. This court cannot find that success on the merits of this case would be successful on appeal. Defendant’s motion is DENIED. 9:00 24CV446910 Ejigayehu Kebede vs. Defendant Marilyn Reynolds moves this court to set aside default judgment. The 4 Bryan Reynolds, et.al. application to set aside judgment was made within one day of the six month statutory limitation under CCP section 473(b).

The court has the discretion to determine whether to grant relief to a party from default if the default was taken through “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” provided the application was made within a reasonable time period. This court cannot conclude that the motion to set aside was made within a reasonable time period. Specifically, defendant Marilyn Reynold’s new counsel James Arrasmith represented Ms. Reynolds since January 30. 2026—the motion was not filed until April 30, 2026.

Defendant’s motion is DENIED. Defendant is ordered to pay attorney costs of $3,250 and recoverable costs of $65.00. 9:00 25CV469984 Vincent Daily vs Plaintiff petitions this court to compel further responses. Plaintiff propounded form 5 Taylor Morrison of interrogatories No. 1.1., 15.1, 16..1-16.6, and 17.1.. Defendant asserted a privilege California protection. No. 12.4 requested providing video which Defendant has asserted that it has provided. Plaintiff’s petition is DENIED. 9:00 25CV472823 Hank Wright vs.

Plaintiff moves this court tp set aside dismissal. This case was scheduled for an 6 Nelson Holdo, et.al. order to show cause hearing. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear. However, Plaintiff failed to appear due to incorrectly logging into the wrong platform. By the time Plaintiff’s counsel corrected his mistake, the court had adjourned. Defendant filed no objection to this motion. This appears to be a clear case of inadvertence or mistake per CCP 473(b). Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. 9:00 2CV485862 Mihretab Yifter vs.

See below. 7 Universal Protection Service, LP

3