Motion to Determine Value
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
DATE: July 16, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 9:00 A.M. LINE 1 23CV416906 Emilia Arroyo vs Motion for Leave to File to Amended Complaint Juan Manuel On November 6, 2025, Plaintiff Emilia Arroyo filed a motion for leave to Salas, Jr. file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The motion is accompanied by a proof of electronic service on that same day to defense counsel.
The motion is unopposed. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), opposition papers were due on July 2, 2026. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. California Rule of Court Rule 8.54c. Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the plaintiff has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).
“Leave to amend is liberally allowed.” (Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1103, 1111; Code of Civil Procedure 473). “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530
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?”
Based on the foregoing, the unopposed motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file her SAC within twenty days of this hearing date. The Court will provide the Order. LINE 2 23CV423546 Owen Buckvar et Motion to Determine Value al vs Bernard OFF CALENDAR. This matter has been assigned for trial with the Buckvar Honorable Lori Pegg commencing on July 16, 2026. This motion will therefore be heard by Judge Pegg in Department 21.
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
DATE: July 16, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS On October 28, 2025, Plaintiffs Owen and Irina Buckvar filed this motion to determine value, specifically requesting for an Order for the following: (1) to appoint an appraiser to determine the fair market value of the real property located at 10757 Vista Drive, Cupertino, California 95014 (the “Property”), (2) set a hearing to determine the fair market value, or alternatively to order the Property to be sold, and (3) to send a buyout notice with a deadline for compliance—under Code of Civil Procedure sections 872.720, 872.810, 873.010, 874.316, 874.317, 874.318. The motion was accompanied by a proof of service indicating electronic mail service to defense counsel on that same day.
The motion is unopposed. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), opposition papers were due on July 2, 2026. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. California Rule of Court Rule 8.54c. Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the plaintiff has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).
Given the posture of the case being assigned to a trial department, this motion will be heard in front of the Honorable Lori Pegg.
3