Aghawani vs. Vershinin Dental Corporation

The motion complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, and there was no prejudicial delay. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (a)(1); Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [applying “a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments”]; see also Declaration of Joseph D. Larsen ¶¶ 5-7.)

Cross-Complainant shall file and serve the first amended cross-complaint, as reflected in the supporting declaration of Joseph D. Larsen, Exhibit 1, within 5 days.

Cross-Complainant shall give notice.

311 Aghawani vs. Before the Court is a Motion to Place Documents Vershinin Under Seal filed by plaintiff Lamis Aghawani. Dental Corporation In the body of the motion, plaintiff states “Pseudonymous party has prepared a redacted version (a version with true names and identifying characteristics blacked out) of each of the documents checked above and is lodging it with the court.” However, the Court has not received copies of the redacted documents.

Accordingly, the hearing on the motion is CONTINUED to July 6, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C24 to allow plaintiff to lodge copies of the redacted version of the documents. The redacted version of each document should indicate the ROA number of the original unredacted document and all redacted documents must be lodged in Department C24 not less than 10 court days prior to the continued hearing date.

Additionally, this action was filed on April 18, 2025 and despite multiple extensions by the Court, the plaintiff has yet to serve the defendant with the Summons and Complaint. Accordingly, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause as to why the

complaint should not be dismissed for failure to serve the defendant as required by Rule 3.110 on July 6, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C24. Any evidence submitted in response to the OSC is required to be filed 10 court days prior to the hearing.

The clerk shall give notice.

312 Bradford Place Plaintiff Bradford Place Santa Ana II Homeowners Santa Ana II Association’s motion for publication of summons Homeowners and complaint is DENIED without prejudice. Association vs. Cruz There is insufficient evidence Plaintiff took reasonable steps to determine the current residence of defendant Adrian Cruz (Defendant), including inquiry as to whether his travel outside the country was permanent or temporary, and/or inquiry (or attempts to serve Defendant) at the property at issue in this litigation. (Watts v. Crawford (1995) 10 Cal.4th 743, 749, n. 5 [the term “reasonable diligence” denotes “a thorough, systematic investigation and inquiry conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or attorney”]; see also Judicial Council comments to Code of Civ. Proc. § 415.50.)

If his current address is known, there is insufficient evidence of attempts to serve Defendant by substitute service or mail coupled with acknowledgment of receipt. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50 [service by publication requires first attempting service through another authorized manner]; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20 § 415.30.)

Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence of the existence of a cause of action against Cruz or that Cruz claims an interest in real or personal property subject to the court’s jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50, subd. (a).) Counsel’s one-line sentence in his