Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint
Court is specifically not ordered to turn over all communications, as it is overbroad, ambiguous, and potentially a violation of HIPAA regarding other tenants' specific ADA accommodation or needs.
Court DENIES as to the Special Interrogatory #4.
Defendant is ordered to produce the items as indicated in the above ruling within 7 business days of today’s date.
The Court continues the Pretrial Conference date to 8/14/2026 at 8:30 AM in Dept. C61 and the Jury Trial is set for 8/17/2026 at 8:30 AM.
The previously set trial dates are vacated.
11 30-2026-01570049 The Court has read and considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Request for Rancho Tierra Admissions, Set One, Admitted (ROA 38). Apartments LLC vs. De Olivas IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One, Admitted is granted and that the truth of all specified matters, and the genuineness of all specified documents, in the First Set of Requests for Admission, propounded by Plaintiff and served on Defendant Donna Riccobono on July 1, 2026, be deemed admitted.
The Court orders the Defendant, Christian De Olivas, forthwith to pay a sanction in the amount of $810 to Plaintiff's Counsel. This sum shall be made payable to "Kimball, Tirey & St. John, LLP" within 10 business days of service of this order and shall be delivered via mail to 2040 Main Street, Suite 500, Irvine, CA 92614. If any party is required to further enforce the terms herein, the party enforcing this Judgment shall be entitled to further attorneys' fees and costs.
The Court Orders Plaintiff to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
13 30-2026-01580043 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service Mahgerefteh vs. of Summons and Complaint (ROA 11), Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 14) and Hawes Defendant’s Reply to Opposition (ROA 18).
Defendant is ordered to provide the Deputy assigned to C61 with the actual footage referenced in his motion for the Court to review. 14 30-2026-01582621 The Court has read and considered the Defendants, Jinghui Chen and Irvine Promenade Apts Yunghan Wu’s Motion to Quash Service (ROA 23). I LLC vs. Chen The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Court Docket regarding this matter.
The Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service showing personal or substituted service on the Defendants. There is no order to serve the summons by posting. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Jinghui Chen and Yunghan Wu’s Motion to Quash Service.
The Court Clerk is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
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?”