Jane Doe v. Ibrahim Ozturk
Motion to enforce settlement agreement; Motion for rescission of purported settlement agreement
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 13, 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**
Line 3 24CV453591 Ruthann Click LINE 3 or scroll down for ruling. Deadmond v. Ford Motor Company et al.
Line 4 25CV461754 Ryan Roubal v. Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. Curt Frieden et al.
Line 5 25CV470051 Jane Doe v. Defendant Ibrahim Ozturk’s motion to enforce settlement agreement.
Notice Ibrahim Ozturk is not proper. Notice was sent to a mailing address that does not match the address listed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint, which was filed before the motion to enforce the settlement agreement. It is unclear from the record whether defendant has been served the first amended complaint.
Out of an abundance of caution, the matter is continued to October 15, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 10, to allow for proper service of the motion. Defendant is directed to serve the motion and all supporting documents, with a new notice listing the continued hearing date, to the P.O. Box listed on the first amended complaint. The court does not grant leave to supplement the motion with additional argument. The court will prepare the order.
Line 6 25CV470051 Jane Doe v. Plaintiff Jane Doe’s motion for rescission of purported settlement agreement. Ibrahim Ozturk
Notice is not proper. There is no proof of service. The notice states that it “does not seek an order, hearing, or ex parte relief.” But in an abundance of caution the court will not deny the motion and will instead continue the matter to October 15, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 10, to allow for proper service of the motion.
Plaintiff is directed to serve defendant the motion, with a new notice listing the continued hearing date. The court does not grant leave to supplement the motion with additional argument. The court will prepare the order.
Line 7 25CV471961 Tyreece Baldon Click LINE 7 or scroll down for ruling. et al. v. Jake Ta et al.
3
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?”