Nordby Construction Company v. Signorello Winery

Based on the foregoing, the motion to quash the service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED.

CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

Nordby Construction Company v. Signorello Winery 23CV000838

CLAIM OF EXEMPTION

TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to June 3, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A. The Judgment Debtor’s Claim of Exemption is not in the Court file. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (c) [“The claim of exemption ... shall be received in evidence.”].) The Judgment Creditor is directed to file, no later than May 27, 2026, the Judgment Debtor’s Claim of Exemption with the accompanying proof of service by the levying officer and a Proof of Service demonstrating that Judgment Creditor sufficiently “file[d] with the levying officer a copy of the notice of opposition and a copy of the notice of motion.” (Id., § 703.550, subd. (a).)

**at 9:30 a.m.** Jose Antonio Ceballos Cruz v. Cakebread Cellars 25CV002628

DEFENDANT CAKEBREAD CELLARS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff Jose Antonio Ceballos Cruz is ordered to serve, no later than 14 calendar days from entry of the instant order, code-compliant responses to Cakebread Cellars’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, and Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One. The motion to compel responses is DENIED as to the Requests for Admissions. The request for an award of monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff and its attorneys of record shall remit, within 14 calendar days from entry of the instant order, monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,300 to Cakebread Cellars courtesy of its counsel of record in the action.

The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.