Plaintiff’s (Amended) Motion for (1) Interlocutory Judgment of Partition and (2) Appointment of Referee
May 29, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar
HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ 9:00 AM Line 4 24-CIV-05368 SHANE CORNEJO VS. SHANON CORNEJO, ET AL
SHANE CORNEJO SCOTT TALKOV SHANON CORNEJO DAVID S. HENSHAW
Plaintiff’s (Amended) Motion for (1) Interlocutory Judgment of Partition and (2) Appointment of Referee
TENTATIVE RULING:
The Motion of Plaintiff Shane Cornejo (“Plaintiff”) for an Interlocutory Judgment and Appointment of Referee is DENIED.
Procedural Posture
The court previously continued this Motion from September 12, 2025 to first determine whether a guardian ad litem needed to be appointed on behalf of Plaintiff. After appointing Plaintiff a guardian ad litem, the court then continued this Motion for submission of a report by Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem. (See, Report of Guardian Ad Litem filed January 6, 2026.) The Guardian Ad Litem found that the actions taken by Plaintiff’s aunt and uncle in connection with this litigation are reasonable, appropriate and in Plaintiff’s best interests. The Guardian Ad Litem also opined that this action provides Plaintiff with the only realistic means of obtaining value from his ownership interest and securing funds necessary to support him as his needs increase with age. Accordingly, the court finds it appropriate to now rule on the merits of this Motion.
As a procedural matter, Defendant filed and served a supplemental opposition on May 11, 2026. Plaintiff thereafter filed a supplemental reply on May 21, 2026. In continuing this Motion, the court did not provide for the parties to file and serve any supplemental papers regarding this Motion. As such, the supplemental opposition and supplemental reply are without leave of court. The court therefore has DISREGARDED both filings.
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED for failure to file a separate request for judicial notice. (See, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(l) [“Any request for judicial notice must be made in a separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested...”].)
Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections nos. 1 and 2 are OVERRULED.
ANALYSIS
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?”
Plaintiff has not provided any authority to support that a motion may be brought seeking an interlocutory judgment. Instead, a court shall determine at trial whether a plaintiff has the right to partition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 872.710, subd. (a).) “If the court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to partition, it shall make an interlocutory judgment that determines the interests of the parties in the property and orders the partition
May 29, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 7 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ of the property and, unless it is to be later determined, the manner of partition.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 872.720, subd. (a).) Although Plaintiff argues that a dispositive motion such as a motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication or a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be brought in a partition action, Plaintiff has not filed and served either of these motions thus they are not before the court.
Plaintiff also seeks appointment of a referee. However, the court “shall appoint a referee to divide or sell the property as ordered by the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 873.010, subd. (a).) Thus, generally the court must first determine the right to partition before it may order appointment of a referee. (Code Civ. Proc., § 872.710, subd. (a).)
Therefore, the Motion of Plaintiff for an Interlocutory Judgment and Appointment of Referee is DENIED.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the CRC. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be filed or e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.