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.

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