Vishal Gobhil et al. v. IDC Technologies, Inc. (“IDC”) et al.
Order of examination
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
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: August 11, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them 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**
GRANTED IN PART: the court awards attorney fees in the amount of $16,406.10 ($21,729 minus $3,500 equals $18,229, and then reduced by 10 percent). Plaintiff is also awarded its costs of $712.94. Defendant forfeited any challenge to costs by not filing a motion to tax costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(1).) The court will prepare the order. Line 7 25CV457236 Harold Davis et Click LINE 7 or scroll down for ruling. al. v. David Krause et al. Line 8 25CV458303 Jennifer Harris v. Click LINE 8 or scroll down for ruling. FCA US, LLC et al.
- oo0oo - 9:01 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 2015-1-CV- Vishal Gobhil et al. Order of examination: parties to appear. 288617 v. IDC Technologies, Inc. (“IDC”) et al. Line 2 2015-1-CV- Vishal Gobhil et al. Order of examination: parties to appear. 288617 v. IDC Technologies, Inc. (“IDC”) et al. Line 3 22CV403398 Ha Thanh Nguyen Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record: parties to v. Kelly La appear.
- oo0oo -
5
Cited authorities
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?”