| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO COMPEL CPRA COMPLIANCE, IN CAMERA REVIEW, AND STATUTORY COSTS
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 26, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
No. 26CV00214
ARCE v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO COMPEL CPRA COMPLIANCE, IN CAMERA REVIEW, AND STATUTORY COSTS
The motion is vacated. Petitioner failed to file necessary moving papers.
The court record in this matter contains two different proofs of service by petitioner (filed February 24 and 25, 2026) which list several documents related to this motion that are not contained in the court record. Those documents are petitioner’s notice of motion, memorandum of points and authorities, and declaration. It appears the parties are both aware that petitioner’s motion was not in the court record (see footnote 1 to County’s opposition memorandum, petitioner’s reply and Amended Declaration of Ms. Cardona-Muller). Petitioner’s failure to properly file his documents prevents the court from reviewing and ruling on the motion.
Further, petitioner has reserved a hearing date (July 22, 2026) for a motion for leave to file a second amended petition. Since the operative pleading may change, the more prudent course is to hear petitioner’s motion for leave first, and then determine a briefing schedule for the petition for writ of mandate.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”