Plaintiff Serge Cigdemoglu’s motion to deem facts admitted against Defendant Nicole Feryanitz
LAW & MOTION CALENDAR TENTATIVE RULINGS
June 25, 2026
Judge R. Shawn Nelson Department C10
Department C10 hears law and motion on Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.
Court reporters: Official court reporters are not provided in this department for any proceedings. If the parties desire the services of a court reporter, the parties should follow the procedures set forth in the Privately Retained Court Reporter Policy on the court’s website at www.occourts.org.
Tentative rulings: The court endeavors to post tentative rulings on the court’s website by 9:00 a.m. the day of the hearing. Tentative rulings may not be posted in every case. Please do not call the department for tentative rulings if tentative rulings have not been posted. The court will not entertain a request to continue a hearing or the filing of further documents once a tentative ruling has been posted.
Submitting on tentative rulings: If all counsel intend to submit on the tentative ruling and do not desire oral argument, please advise the Courtroom Clerk or Courtroom Attendant by calling (657) 622- 5210. Please do not call the department unless all parties submit on the tentative ruling. If all sides submit on the tentative ruling and so advise the court, the tentative ruling shall become the court’s final ruling and the prevailing party shall give notice of the ruling and prepare an order for the court’s signature if appropriate under Cal. R. Ct. 3.1312.
Appearances and public access: Appearances, whether in person or remote, must comply with Civil Procedure Code section 367.75, California Rule of Court 3.672, Orange County Superior Court Local Rule 375, and Orange County Superior Court Appearance Procedure and Information—Civil Unlimited and Complex (pub. 9/9/22).
Unless the court orders otherwise, remote appearances will be conducted via Zoom. All counsel and selfrepresented parties appearing via Zoom must check in through the court’s civil remote appearance website before the hearing begins. Check-in instructions are available on the court’s website.
The public may attend hearings by coming to court or via remote access as described above.
Photographing, filming, recording, and/or broadcasting court proceedings are prohibited unless authorized pursuant to
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?”
Non-appearances: If nobody appears for the hearing and the court has not been notified that all parties submit on the tentative ruling, the court shall determine whether the matter is taken off calendar or the tentative ruling becomes the final ruling.
NO. CASE NAME MATTER
1:30 p.m.
1 Cigdemoglu v. Plaintiff Serge Cigdemoglu’s motion to deem facts admitted against Feryanitz Defendant Nicole Feryanitz is DENIED without prejudice.
At the court’s November 13, 2025 initial hearing on the motion, the court noted discrepancies related to service. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the discovery at issue was served on October 20, 2024. [Declaration of Jamie Jiyoon Kim, ¶ 2]. However, the proof of service for the discovery
at issue states that service of request for admission, set one, was served by mail on July 21, 2024 at 21231 Dove Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 [the “Huntington Beach Address”]. [Id., Ex. 1 at p. 3].
Further, the address listed on the caption of Defendant Nicole Feryanitz’s answer is the Huntington Beach Address. However, the motion, itself, was served on Nicole Feryanitz at 1166 Verrona Place, Pomona, CA 91766 (the “Pomona Address”). There is no notice of change of address by Nicole Feryanitz on file in this case. There is no explanation how and why Plaintiff obtained this Pomona Address.
The court continued the hearing for Plaintiff to file an amended declaration explaining the discrepancy in the addresses and to establish that Defendant Feryanitz received the discovery at issue and the moving papers on the motion with sufficient notice.
Since that hearing, Plaintiff has only filed a notice of the continued hearing, which Plaintiff served on Defendant Feryanitz at both the Huntington Beach Address and the Pomona Address. There is no further evidence that Defendant Feryanitz received proper notice of all of the moving papers on the motion with sufficient notice. Further, to the extent that Plaintiff has information that Defendant Feryanitz moved to the Pomona Address, the discovery being served at the Huntington Address may likely not have reached Feryanitz.
For these reasons, the motion is denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff to give notice.
2 Latif v. Jack W. Defendants Jack Mitchell Construction, Inc., Jack Mitchell Construction, Mitchell Jack W. Mitchell and Lorie Mitchell’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff Alaa Latif’s Construction, Inc. First Amended Complaint is DENIED.
Authority
Code Civ. Proc. § 436, provides: “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strikeout any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.”
Defendants move to strike the following from the First Amended Complaint (FAC):
1. Page 10, lines 1-2, paragraph 64, in its entirety, which alleges: “Defendants acted willfully and maliciously, justifying punitive and exemplary damages under Civil Code §3294.”; and 2. Page 12, line 12, paragraph 5 of the Prayer, which “seeks punitive and exemplary damages pursuant to Civil Code §3294.”
Paragraph 64 is under the 4th cause of action for fraudulent concealment in the FAC.
According to Civ. Code § 3294 (c)(1), (2) and (3):
2