DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CV-02080·merced·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing todayAppearance required

[ Parties’ names withheld pursuant to CCP § 1161.2(a)(1)]

Court Trial

Hearing date
Aug 24, 2026
Department
9
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Ruling

in Ajo, Arizona is a valid current address for Defendant because on August 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed a different proof of service indicating service of the moving papers by mail from Mesa, Arizona to an address for Defendant in Gustine, California. A noticed motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.080 must be served in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(a)(13), Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1300(a)). In this case, if Defendant currently resides in Gustine, the notice of motion and motion served by mail from a location outside California on August 12, 2026, were served less than the minimum required 16 court days plus ten calendar days when mailed from a place outside the State of California (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(b)).

25CV-00156 Cavalry SPV I, LLC vs. Laura Vargas

Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Requests for Admission

The unopposed motion by plaintiff Cavalry SPV I, LLC, for an order deeming admitted the truth of any matters specified in plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, served on defendant Laura Vargas is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) It is undisputed that Defendant has not served a response to the requests for admissions. The Court notes that Plaintiff has not requested monetary sanctions.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers.

26CV-01432 Keith Bradshaw vs. Latasha Perez

Order to Appear for Examination (Small Claims) – Latasha Perez

Appearance required.

26CV-01824 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Cecilia Soto

Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Requests for Admission

The unopposed motion by plaintiff Bank of America, N.A., for an order deeming admitted the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, served on defendant Cecilia Soto is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) It is undisputed that Defendant has not served a response to the requests for admissions. The Court notes that Plaintiff has not requested monetary sanctions.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers.

26CV-02080 [Parties’ names withheld pursuant to CCP § 1161.2(a)(1)]

Court Trial: Unlawful Detainer

Appearance required.

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