DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26-CIV-00963·sanmateo·Civil·Writ of Mandate
Hearing 2 months agoCONTINUED

ROBSON GONCALVES DE OLIVEIRA VS. CITY OF BURLINGAME

DEMURRER TO THE PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE (CCP §1085)

Hearing date
Jun 16, 2026
Department
04
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 28, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PetitionerROBSON GONCALVES DE OLIVEIRA
RespondentCITY OF BURLINGAME

Attorneys

SUSAN A. DENARDOfor Respondent

Ruling

June 16, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 31 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 8 26-CIV-00963 ROBSON GONCALVES DE OLIVEIRA VS. CITY OF BURLINGAME

ROBSON GONCALVES DE OLIVEIRA PRO SE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUSAN A. DENARDO

DEMURRER TO THE PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE (CCP §1085)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The court continues Respondent City of Burlingame’s (Burlingame) demurrer to Petitioner Robson Goncalves de Oliveira’s petition for peremptory writ of mandate to July 28, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department 4. The clerk of the court is to provide notice to all parties. The clerk of the court is also to set a case management conference for September 8, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 4 and to provide notice to all parties.

On March 12, 2026, Burlingame filed and served its demurrer and stated in the notice that the hearing was on April 14, 2026. The clerk’s office, due to the court’s impacted calendar, changed the hearing date to June 16, 2026. Burlingame did not provide notice by federal express of this new date until June 2, 2026, which is not sufficient notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005.) This court does not have jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question. (Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204–1205) Accordingly, the court continues the hearing to provide petitioner with proper notice of the hearing and the statutory time to file an opposition.

If the tentative is not contested, it will become the order of the court without the need for a formal order.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share