Motion to Substitute In As Real Party in Interest and Dismiss Action
Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, sending notice only to the Defendants personally. On May 22, 2026, this Court noticed the error made by the Clerk’s Office in setting the matter for a Court Trial when there was a timely demand for a jury trial, so in Chambers the Court issued the Minute Order of 5/22/2026 (ROA 58) vacating the court trial of 5/26/2026 and setting a pretrial conference for 6/12/2026 and a jury trial for 6/15/2026. On May 22, 2026, the C61 Clerk notified the attorneys of the parties via email of the 5/22/2026 Minute Order. The initial trial date for this matter is June 15, 2026. There were no continuances or postponements filed, but a clerical error in the Court Clerk’s office of failing to review the Court Docket, which showed that there was a demand for a jury trial, and failing to notify the attorney of record properly.
As such, the Court is ordering that the discovery request made by the Defendant’s Counsel was timely. It is understandable that Plaintiff’s counsel may have been confused by the error created by the first issuing of the court trial notice by the clerk’s office. Considering these facts, the Court will order the Plaintiff’s counsel to respond to the discovery request within 5 days. The Court will not issue sanctions against the Plaintiff. Counsel for both parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to the pretrial date.
Given the amount of time for this motion and the need for discovery responses, the Court will advance and vacate the currently set pretrial and jury trial date and reset the pretrial hearing for June 26, 2026, at 8:30 AM in Department C61 and Jury Trial for June 29, 2026, at 8:30 AM in Department C61.
11 30-2026-01569971 The Court has read and considered the Defendants' Motion to Strike CJS Pinemeadows Complaint (ROA 32) and the Complaint (ROA 2). Apartments, L.P. vs. Gonzales The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Proof of Service of Summons (ROA 8, 10 & 14).
The Court DENIES the Motion to Strike Complaint.
California Code of Civil Procedure §435(b)(1) requires a motion to strike to be filed within the 10 business days of service of the summons and complaint. Under California Code of Civil Procedure §1014, a motion to strike is an appearance with the court; the Defendants are precluded from filing a motion to quash service following the filing of a Motion to Strike. Furthermore, California Code of Civil Procedure §435(d) does not extend time to file a demurrer. Therefore, because it has been well past the 10 business days following service of the Summons and Complaint on May 18 & 19, 2026, the Defendants are ordered to file an Answer within 5 calendar days.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.
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?”
12 30-2026-01565351 Pending check back later Regency Palms, LP vs. Riccobono 13 30-2026-01566479 As a threshold matter, Farnaz Rahimi Kashani, as Trustee of the ERK Living Kashani vs. Hogle Trust, filed this unlawful detainer complaint in pro per. Pursuant to California
law established in Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724 and Ziegler v. Nickel (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 545, 547-549: Corporations, LLCs, and Trusts need to be represented by an attorney in civil proceedings.
The Court has read and considered the Motion to Substitute In As Real Party in Interest and Dismiss Action (ROA 18) and Notice of Related Case (ROA 34).
The Court has read and considered the Request for Judicial Notice filed by Real Party in Interest for Richard Huntington, Trustee of the 2014 Mehdi Rahumi Kashani Fard Trust. The Court takes Judicial Notice of Exhibit A-S.
Specifically, as to Exhibit R, in which Judge Susel Carrillo-Orellana on 3/30/2026 made findings as to the premises property located at 31053 Avenida de la Vista, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675. Judge Carrillo-Orellana found that Farnaz Rahimi Kashani was not the proper trustee when filing the unlawful detainer petition for the premises property at 31053 Avenida de la Vista, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675; Richard Huntington was the proper trustee of the premises.
The Court finds 31053 Avenida de la Vista, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 is the same property as the one indicated in Exhibit R. Res Judicata applies to this matter as a Court has already determined that Farnaz Rahimi Kashani does not have the right to file an unlawful detainer action regarding this property as Farnaz Rahimi Kashani is not the owner of the property and not the trustee of the property.
Farnaz Rahimi Kashani had no legal authority to file this unlawful detainer action regarding the premises at the address; therefore, the case is dismissed with prejudice.
14 30-2015-00803737 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Ocean Breeze Villas Renewal of Judgment (ROA 51) and Declaration in Support of the Motion vs. Floridia (ROA 52).
The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Application for and Renewal of Judgment (ROA 35), Proof of Service by Mail (ROA 41), Memorandum of Costs After Judgment (ROA 43), Writ of Execution (ROA 44), Writ of Possession Returned – Wholly Satisfied (ROA 22), Writ (07/11/2018 Issued) (ROA 32), and Declaration of Address Verification (ROA 47).
California Code of Civil Procedure § 683.170(a), states “The renewal of a judgment pursuant to this article may be vacated on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment, including the ground that the amount of the renewed judgment as entered pursuant to this article is incorrect, and shall be vacated if the application for renewal was filed within five years from the time the judgment was previously renewed under this article.” California Code of Civil Procedure §683.160(a) states, “The judgment creditor shall serve a notice of renewal of the judgment on the judgment debtor. Service shall be made personally or by first-class mail and proof of service shall be filed with the court clerk. The notice shall be in a form prescribed by the