Oscar Chun-Fong Chan v. Harris Chun-Hoi Chan, et al.

declaratory relief action concerning the sale of the real property located at 3300 Ocean Drive, Oxnard, California (the "Property").

On March 17, 2026, Plaintiff, Marc L. Benezra, filed this motion to compel Defendant, Dena L. Benezra, to appear for deposition. Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant.

On August 3, 2026, Defendant filed an opposition. Plaintiff had not filed a reply at the time of this writing.

II. DISCUSSION

The motion is moot. Defendant appeared for deposition on June 26, 2026, and the parties agreed to a second session. (Franck Decl., P.P. 2, 8.) There is no basis to compel Plaintiff's deposition. Further, Defendant demonstrates the parties engaged in lengthy meet and confer efforts which rendered this motion as unnecessary. (See Franck Decl., Ex. B.) Accordingly, the court declines to award any sanctions.

III. CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED. Moving party to give notice, unless waived. Dated: August 14, 2026 | | | Brock T. Hammond Judge of the Superior Court |

Judge Brock T. Hammond, Department 407 HEARING DATE: August 14, 2026 TRIAL DATE: Not set CASE: Oscar Chun-Fong Chan v. Harris Chun-Hoi Chan, et al. CASE NO.: 26STCV07811 DEFENDANT HARRIS CHUN-HOI CHAN'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LATE I. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS

Defendant Harris Chun-Choi Chan moves ex parte for dismissal of Plaintiff Oscar Chun-Fong Chan's Complaint because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within 15 days of the Court's sustaining Defendant's demurrer to the Complaint. Plaintiff Oscar Chun-Fong Chan moves ex parte for leave to file a late amended pleading. RULING: The Ex Parte Applications are DENIED.

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 166(a)(4), the Court rules on the Ex Parte Applications in chambers. " 'A court will not grant ex parte relief 'in any but the plainest and most certain of cases.' (People ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suh (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 253, 257.) Substantively, '[a]n applicant must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.' (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1202(c) . . . . 'A trial court should deny an ex parte application absent the requisite showing.' (People ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co., at p. 257.)" (Newsom v. Superior Court (Sutter County) (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1093.)

Here, neither party make the requisite showing to merit ex parte relief. There is no demonstrated exigency or risk if irreparable harm. The parties are directed to bring noticed motions.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Ex Parte Applications are Denied. The clerk of the court to give notice. Dated: August 14, 2026 | | | | Brock T. Hammond Judge of the Superior Court | | | Home -->)" -->