PSHATOIA LAROSE VS. INSTAGRAM LLC, ET AL

JUNE 1, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 8 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM LINE 4 23-CIV-04189 PSHATOIA LAROSE VS. INSTAGRAM LLC, ET AL

PSHATOIA LAROSE PRO SE INSTAGRAM LLC JACOB M. HEATH

Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Pshatoia LaRose’s Motion to Vacate Order is DENIED.

As an initial matter, it appears this Motion is moot. Plaintiff appealed the October 1, 2025 Order that she challenges by this motion, which was filed prior (October 6, 2025) to her November 2025 appeal. That appeal was unsuccessful. That alone justifies denying this motion.

In any event, Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with leave to amend was granted on August 7, 2025, and served on Plaintiff the same day. Schwartz Decl., ¶¶8-9, Exh. D-G.

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Vacate Order” seeks to vacate the October 1, 2025 order dismissing this action following Defendants’ ex parte application to dismiss for failure to timely file an amended complaint pursuant to the August 7, 2025 Order.

Plaintiff does not identify a statutory basis for this Motion and none is apparent.

The Motion does not satisfy procedural requirements for reconsideration pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. section 1008.

The thrust of Plaintiff’s Motion indicates that she was not aware of the October 1, 2025 ex parte hearing that resulted in the dismissal. This assertion is not supported by any admissible evidence (and is inconsistent with the Declaration of Amanda Schwartz filed on October 1, 2025), and even if were it true, the action was properly subject to dismissal following Plaintiff’s unexcused failure to timely file a Second Amended Complaint.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept11@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, defendant’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.