Motion to compel compliance with Court’s November 14, 2025 order
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 05/29/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 21CV392455 Advoque Safeguard LLC, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION et al. v. Benham Pourdeyhimi, et al. Control click or scroll down to Line 1 LINE 2 23CV416938 Patel et al. (Cross MOTION TO COMPEL Complainants) v. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Please control click or scroll down to Line 2 Appel, Inc. (Cross- Defendant) LINE 3 23CV418929 Sophie Yeh MOTION TO STRIKE v. The Harker School, et al. Please control click or scroll down to Line 3 LINE 4 24CV430700 Metropolis Systems MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE & SANCTIONS LLC v.
Cryptic Labs LLC Requirement to comply with a court order is self-evident. Motion to compel compliance with Court’s November 14, 2025 order is GRANTED. Sanctions are warranted but the requested amount of $24,500 is not supported. DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff granted leave to file supplemental declaration outlining the calculation of attorneys’ fees and costs sought, together with a proposed order. Plaintiff to prepare final proposed order accompanied by necessary Form EFS-020 within 7 days of the hearing.
LINE 5 24CV451231 Hernandez Padilla MOTION TO COMPEL v. La Michoacana Plus et al. Off calendar at request of moving party Case remains as previously scheduled for trial 8/3/2026
LINE 6 25CV481671 Ximen Service by Electronic mail v. Linktel Technologies, Inc. Please control click or scroll down to Line 6
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?”