Eitan Cadouri v. Satish Appalakutty et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210

DATE: June 9, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 8 25CV457167 Gita Patel v. Sunil Click LINE 8 or scroll down for ruling. Garg et al. Line 9 25CV480148 Eitan Cadouri v. Plaintiff Eitan Cadouri’s motion to enter judgment by stipulation. (Code Satish Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) Notice is not proper. The motion was served on a law Appalakutty et al. firm, but no defendant has appeared in this action and there is no indication that law firm represents the defendants. Court default has been entered against defendants Vistalytics, Inc., and Satish Appalakutty.

But they were not in default when the motion was filed. The court observes that paragraph G of the October 2025 stipulation for entry of judgment attached as an exhibit to a declaration indicates the “parties agree that judgment may be entered pursuant to this stipulation on an ex parte application by Plaintiff. Defendants waive any right to have a hearing on a noticed motion.” The court cannot decided a noticed motion where there is no proper notice. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of a properly noticed motion or an ex parte application that is consistent with any agreement by the parties.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

9:01 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 24CV453808 CSL Real Estate Motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant LQDX, Inc.: parties to Investments, appear. LLC, a California limited liability company v. LQDX, Inc., a Delaware Corporation - oo0oo -

4