SILVA v. SILVA

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 3, 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. 26CV01693

SILVA v. SILVA

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION REGARDING IMMEDIATE RETURN OF VEHICLE

The motion is vacated. (Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 961-962 [“After a family law court acquires jurisdiction to divide community property in a dissolution action, no other department of the superior court may make an order adversely affecting that division.”].)

Plaintiff is directed to the Self Help Center so that she can prepare a Request For Hearing (“RFO”) in the related family law action, Silva v. Caputo, Santa Cruz County Superior Court no. 25FL00030.

No. 25CV02212

MONTE VISTA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL v. KAZARIAN

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

The demurrer is overruled. Plaintiff’s form complaint adequately pleads a cause of action for breach of contract and is not fatally uncertain (see Complaint sections 8, 10, BC-1 through BC-4). The complaint also includes a copy of the payment plan agreement the parties entered into related to defendant’s promise to pay overdue tuition of $44,750.00.