MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF SAN MATEO COUNTY VS. JORDAN MACHADO

6/11/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 14 of 17

UD LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2026

LINE: 12:00 PM 26-UDL-00415 MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF SAN MATEO COUNTY VS. JORDAN MACHADO

MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF SAN MATEO COUNTY STEVEN T. NAUMCHIK JORDAN MACHADO

PLAINTIFF MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF SAN MATEO COUNTY’S MOTION TO CONTINUE OR RESCHEDULE TRIAL

TENTATIVE RULING:

The request to continue trial is DENIED for the same reasons stated below in connection with the motion to stay, including the defective proof of service, the policy disfavoring delay in unlawful detainer proceedings, and the fact that the case would not be rendered moot because Plaintiff also seeks damages.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide notice of the ruling to all appearing parties as required by law. The Court further directs the parties’ attention to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (eff. Jan. 1, 2024) regarding the form of proposed orders.

6/11/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 15 of 17

2:00 PM LINE: 2 26-UDL-00415 MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF SAN MATEO COUNTY VS. JORDAN MACHADO

MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF SAN MATEO COUNTY STEVEN T. NAUMCHIK JORDAN MACHADO

DEFENDANT JORDAN MACHADO’S MOTION TO STAY

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated below, Defendant Jordan Machado’s Motion for Stay is DENIED.

As a preliminary matter, the proof of service has two defects. First, the titles of the documents listed in the proof of service of the motion and its supporting papers do not match the titles of the documents actually filed in support of the motion. (See Apr. 28, 2026 Proof of Service, § 3; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a, subds. (1)–(3) [proof of service must state “exact titles” of documents served].) Second, the subscription on the proof of service is not dated. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5 [declaration must state date of execution].) Accordingly, there is insufficient indication that Plaintiff Mental Health Association of San Mateo County has received notice of the motion and has been served all required papers.

Furthermore, issues of notice and service aside, while the decision of whether to grant a continuance is committed to a trial court’s discretion, courts are required by statute to “[a]dopt and utilize a firm, consistent policy against continuances, to the maximum extent possible and reasonable, in all stages of the litigation.” (Gov. Code, § 68607, subd. (g); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) The policy disfavoring delay has special application to unlawful detainer proceedings, as they are “a summary procedure designed principally to enable the landlord to gain speedy possession of the property.” (Northrop Corp. v. Chaparral Energy, Inc. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 725, 729.)

Defendant Jordan Machado seeks to stay the entire case or, in the alternative, to continue the trial pending his voluntary surrender of the premises and relocation to new housing. (See Apr. 28, 2026 Declaration of Jordan Machado, ¶¶ 2–3, 5–15.) Though he argues his voluntary surrender would moot the dispute over possession and no prejudice would result from the delay, the delay itself would defeat the purpose of the expedited special proceeding. Furthermore, trial would still be required as to the damages sought by the Complaint—the case would not be moot.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide notice of the ruling to all appearing parties as required by law. The Court further directs the parties’ attention to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (eff. Jan. 1, 2024) regarding the form of proposed orders.