PEREZ, AMALIA vs KAUR, BALJINDER

The Court is inclined to overrule the Demurrer. The three-day notice begins on the date of service. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1170.) Here, the notice was served on April 9, 2026. The instant matter is unlike the notice in Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) 112 Cal.App.5 th 433 because here the service date listed on the notice is the same date the notice was served. Next, Plaintiff waited until after the expiration of the three-day notice period before filing the complaint. Nothing in section 1170 requires a 30 day notice period.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 23***

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-22-000411 - PEREZ, AMALIA vs KAUR, BALJINDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion. Notwithstanding Counsel's attestation to his client having fled to Mexico without knowledge of his whereabouts, the Court requires that Counsel mail the moving papers to the client's last known address. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362). Accordingly, this matter is continued to June 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court for Counsel to accomplish said service.

CV-23-002153 - WILKINS, JANENE R vs YOSEMITE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses, Without Objections, to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Yosemite Community College District, Set No. Two, and Request for an Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant and Defense Counsel in the Sum Of $4,550 - GRANTED, in part. DENIED, in part. The Court finds that Defendant's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 106, 107, 108 are not Code Compliant for failing to "specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party."

Defendants response also failed to "set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item." (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2031.230) Defendants' response to Request for Production No. 117 fails to "affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand", fails to "state whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen" and fails to "set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item." (Civ.