U.S. Bank National Association v. Jeannie Dan

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210

DATE: July 2, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 22CV404920 U.S. Bank National Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association’s motion to enter judgment by Association v. Jeannie stipulation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) Notice is proper and the Dan motion is unopposed. The parties signed a stipulation for entry of judgment in 2023, under which defendant Jeannie Dan agreed to make installment payments to pay off a debt. A declaration in support of the motion indicates defendant stopped making payments.

On good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. Moving party to submit proposed order and proposed judgment, indicating damages of $12,753.51 and costs of $504.22. Line 2 24CV432798 Michael Karavastev v. Plaintiff Michael Karavastev’s motion to lift the stay imposed by court Andrean Karavastev et order filed August 1, 2024. The motion was served electronically. al. There is no consent to receiving electronic service on file for any party. Even assuming proper notice, the motion must be denied. The August 2024 order staying proceedings determined that plaintiff’s claims in this action could not be determined “until the family division renders a final determination as to Michael’s and Iva’s property rights regarding the loans in the Divorce Proceedings.”

Plaintiff has repeatedly and unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration of that order. Plaintiff presents no new facts, circumstances, or law that would support reconsideration of the August 2024 order. Plaintiff’s current motion states that the family law case (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. case No. 21FL004401) “concluded and is now on appeal.” Plaintiff attaches no evidence, and does not request judicial notice of any court filings in that case, to support his present motion. And if the family law case is on appeal, it has not concluded.

This matter must remain stayed until the family law case (and any appeal in that case) are complete. The motion is DENIED. The court will prepare the order.

2