Robert Moles et al vs Carney Construction Consulting, Inc. 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: September 10, 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 20CV370735 Robert Moles et al Motion to Disqualify Counsel vs Carney Scroll down to Line 1 for Tentative Ruling. Construction Consulting, Inc. et al LINE 2 25CV477971 Chadney Duncan- Petition to Compel Arbitration Pauley vs Ford Scroll down to Line 2 for Tentative Ruling. Motor Company et al LINE 3 26CV491239 Cassondra Lascola Motion to Deem First Amended Complaint Filed Nunc Pro Tunc et al vs Scroll down to Line 3 for Tentative Ruling. Mohammed Al- Temimi M.D. et al LINE 4 26CV497702 Baoxin Ling vs Petition For Writ of Mandate Miro Holdings, VACATED. This case has been designated as a provisional complex LLC dba Topi matter and is reassigned to Department 66 in front of the Honorable Helen Cake E. Williams for all purposes. The Case Management Conference is set for October 13, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 66. - oo0oo –

9:01 A.M.

NULL -- -- -- - oo0oo -

9:00 A.M. Calendar Line # 1 Case Name Robert Moles et al vs Carney Construction Consulting, Inc. et al Case No. 20CV370735 Motion to Disqualify Counsel

I. BACKGROUND

A. BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND This breach of contract claim stems from a Complaint that Plaintiffs Robert Moles and Christopher Douglas Moles, as Trustee of the Mary Denise Moles Revocable Trust, Successor in interest (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed on September 14, 2020 against Ian Carney (“Carney”), Carney Construction Consulting, Inc. (“Carney Construction”), SJR Ventures, Inc. (“SJR”), Steven Johnson (“Johnson”), and DOES 1 through 20 (collectively “Defendants”).

B. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 11, 2022, Defendants SJR and Johnson filed a petition to compel arbitration and stay the action. Parties filed a stipulation to proceed to binding arbitration and stay the action on October 26, 2022.

On June 20, 2024, basic default was entered against Defendant Carney. On April 14, 2026, Plaintiff filed a request for court judgment against Defendants Carney and Carney Construction in the amount of $5,416,584,78 and the matter was set for a prove up hearing on June 8, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in front of the Honorable Shella Deen. The prove up hearing was reset to July 20, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 18.

C. PRESENT MOTION On May 18, 2026, Defendant Carney filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ronald R. Rossi, Esq. and the law firm of Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck Counsel and James L. Dawson, Esq. and the law firm of Gates Eisenhart Dawson, counsel for Defendants SJR Ventures, Inc. and Steven Johnson. (Notice of Motion, p. 1-2). The motion was initially set for June 8, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 18. No minute order reflects this case was continued to this date in Department 1. There is no proof of service attached for this hearing date as required under Code of Civil Procedure 1005(b).

Plaintiff’s counsel filed opposition papers on May 27, 2026 and a limited opposition on September 3, 2026.

Defendant filed Reply briefs on August 20, 2026 and supplemental reply brief September 4, 2026.

The Court has carefully reviewed the Defendant Carney’s notice of motion, memorandum of points and authorities (“MPA”), Declaration of Ian D. Carney in support of the defendant’s moving papers with Exhibits A – I attached (totaling 63 pages); Plaintiff’s May 27, 2026 Opposition (totaling 6 pages); May 27, 2026, Declaration of Missy M. Cornejo in support of the opposition and attached Exhibits A – F (totaling 24 pages); August 20, 2026 Reply brief, Declaration of Carney and attached Exhibits A-B (totaling 27 pages); September 3, 2026 Plaintiff’s Limited Opposition (totaling 9 pages); September 3, 2026 Declaration of Missy M. Cornejo and attached Exhibits A-B (totaling 38 pages); September 4 Reply (totaling 2 pages); proofs of services; and the pleadings.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. DEFAULT STATUS “The entry of a default terminates a defendant's rights to take any further affirmative steps in the litigation until either its default is set aside or a default judgment is entered.” (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, 3

Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385). Further, the entry of default “[c]uts off the defendant's right to file pleadings and motions (other than a motion to set aside default under § 473), and it also cuts off the defendant's right to notices and the service of pleadings or papers.” (Bailey v. Citibank, N.A. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 335, 347; Steven M. Garber & Assocs. v. Eskandarian (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 813, 819). Aside from a motion to set aside a default judgment, any other motion filed by a defendant in default is unauthorized and void. (Humphrey v. Bewley (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 571, 580).

B. PROCEDURAL VIOLATION Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires that “[a]ll moving and supporting papers shall be filed and served at least 16 court days before the hearing. The moving and supporting papers served shall be a copy of the papers filed or to be filed with the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1010). A proof of service must be attached to motions and filings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.306 and 3.510l; see also Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010 and 1013).

III. ANALYSIS Here, Defendant Carney seeks to disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ronald R. Rossi, Esq. and the law firm of Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck Counsel and James L. Dawson, Esq. and the law firm of Gates Eisenhart Dawson, counsel for Defendants SJR Ventures, Inc. and Steven Johnson. (Notice of Motion, p. 1-2). Plaintiff seeks to disqualify counsel under California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.9. (MPA, p. 2-3).

Without waiving any substantive objections on the merits of the motion, Plaintiff opposes the motion on the following procedural deficiencies: (1) a default was entered against the defendant on June 20, 2024, which remains in effect; (2) failure to provide proper notice of this hearing; and (3) failure to comply timely filing and notification of the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). (Limited Opposition, p. 2-6; Opposition, p. 3). Plaintiff counsel asserts that the notice of motion for June 8, 2026 was not properly calendared it eh correct department and the motion was not called on that day and the minute order is silent as to the motion. (Declaration of Cornejo in support of the limited opposition, ⁋⁋ 6-8; Exhibit B). Plaintiff asserts that while defendant reserved a hearing date for this motion., service was not properly effectuated. (Id., at ⁋⁋ 9-13).

In reply, Defendant Carney asserts that even if notice was not proper for the June 8, 2026 hearing, the defendant refiled the motion for a later hearing date. (Reply, p. 2). Defendant Carney requests that the Court consider the substantive merits of the motion despite any procedural defects. (Id., p. 2-7). Defendant argues that Plaintiff filed opposition papers, which demonstrate knowledge of this present motion and hearing. (Supplemental Reply, p. 1-2).

First and foremost, the Court finds that an entry of default was filed on June 20, 2024 against Defendant Carney. The default status remains in place. Accordingly, Defendant Carney is precluded from filing pleadings or this present motion. (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc., supra, 155 Cal.App.3d at 385; Bailey v. Citibank, N.A., supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at 347; Steven M. Garber & Assocs. v. Eskandarian, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at 819). Given Defendant Carney’s default status, the Court deems this present motion to disqualify counsel as unauthorized and void. (Id.; see also, Humphrey v. Bewley, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th 571, 580). The Court need not further analyze additional procedural deficiencies under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 and cannot consider the merits of the motion.

IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the motion to disqualify is DENIED. The Court will prepare the formal Order. // // //

4