RYAN KOLSTAD vs SARAH EBRO et al

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 13 Honorable Daniel T. Nishigaya R. Belligan, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2240

DATE: June 3, 2026 TIME: 9:00 & 9:01 A.M. TO CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING, YOU MUST CALL (408) 808-6856 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY PRIOR TO THE HEARING. You must also inform all other sides to the issue before 4:00 P.M. the day prior to the hearing that you plan to contest the ruling. The Court will not hear argument, and the tentative ruling will be adopted if these notifications are not made. (Cal. Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1); Civil Local Rule 8.D.)

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 23CV417950 FREDI CUELLAR et al vs MATILDA Motion: Compel Further Responses TRAINOR et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 1 for tentative ruling. LINE 2 23CV417950 FREDI CUELLAR et al vs MATILDA Motion: Compel Further Responses TRAINOR et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 1 for tentative ruling. LINE 3 24CV446807 RYAN KOLSTAD vs SARAH EBRO et Motion: Sanctions al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 3 for tentative ruling. LINE 4 25CV466415 Corey M vs DAMIAN HERNANDEZ, et Motion: Compel Further Responses al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 4 for tentative ruling. LINE 5 25CV473157 Shabana Pirani vs Costco Warehouse Motion: Strike Corporation Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 5 for tentative ruling. LINE 6 25CV473159 Shabana Pirani vs Petrinovich Pugh & Motion: Strike Co et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 6 for tentative ruling.

Calendar Line 3

Case Name: RYAN KOLSTAD vs SARAH EBRO et al Case No.: 24CV446807

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Proc., §§ 128.7(b)(1) and (b)(3) is DENIED.

“Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 should be utilized only in “the rare and exceptional case where the action is clearly frivolous, legally unreasonable or without legal foundation, or brought for an improper purpose.” (Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. A-C Co. (9th Cir. 1988) 859 F.2d 1336, 1344.)” (Kumar v. Ramsey (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1110, 1121.) Although Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed, the Court does not find that the selfrepresented Defendant’s assertions and arguments made in support of her motion to quash, although unsuccessful, rise to the level of sanctionable conduct under section 128.7.