DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24-CIV-04290·sanmateo·Civil·Contract
Hearing 14 days agoDENIED as MOOT

RAJESHWOR PANDEY VS. KIM MITCHELL

Motion to Transfer Funds

Hearing date
Aug 10, 2026
Department
11
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffRAJESHWOR PANDEY
DefendantKIM MITCHELL

Attorneys

RAJESHWOR PANDEYfor Plaintiff
KIM MITCHELLfor Defendant
SARAH SHAPEROfor Plaintiff

Ruling

August 10, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 2 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Case Title / Nature of Case

02:00 PM 24-CIV-04290 RAJESHWOR PANDEY VS. KIM MITCHELL LINE 1

RAJESHWOR PANDEY SARAH SHAPERO KIM MITCHELL

PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFEDNANT: RAJESHWOR PANDEY’S MOTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated below, the unopposed Motion to Transfer Funds (the “Motion”) is DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

This case is related to San Mateo Case No. 23CIV05363. (See Notice of Related Case, filed October 29, 2025.) By this Motion, Plaintiff requests “an Order transferring the funds deposited into San Mateo County Case 24-CIV-04290 to San Mateo County Case 23-CIV-05363.” (Notice of Motion, at p. 2:3-4.) The requested relief in the present motion has already been granted in the related action: “The Clerk of Court for the County of San Mateo, in the State of California, is directed to transfer the funds deposited in the Related Case 24-CIV-04290 into this action, Case 23-CIV-05363.” (Order filed June 5, 2026 in Case No. 23CIV05363.) The Motion is accordingly DENIED as MOOT.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be efiled only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share