On April 11, 2017 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Mani, Subar,
and
City Of San Bruno,
Does 1 To 25,
for (14) Unlimited Eminent Domain/Inv Cond
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
Case Number: 17-CIV-01581
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
400 County Center 1050 Mission Road
Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080
www.sanmateocourt.org
Minute Order
SUBAR MANI vs. CITY OF SAN BRUNO, et al 17-CIV-01581
08/31/2018 10:45 AM
Motion to Vacate Judgment
Hearing Result: Held
Judicial Officer: Karesh, Jonathan E. Location: Courtroom 8C
Courtroom Clerk: Jada Obaob Courtroom Reporter: Megan Zalmai
Parties Present
CITY OF SAN BRUNO Defendant
MANI, SUBAR Plaintiff
ZAFFERANO, MARC L Attorney
Exhibits
Minutes
Journals
- Honorable Jonathan E. Karesh, Judge presiding. Clerk: Jada Obaob. Court Reporter: Megan Zalmai.
Above-noted counsel and parties, present.
Also present: John Beiers - County Counsel Manager.
At 10:44, Hearing commences.
Argument presented by counsel. Matter submitted.
Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:
MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, AMENDED ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER, ORDER SUSTAINING
DEMURRER, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND BY PLAINITIFF
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff's motion to vacate judgment, amended order sustaining demurrer, and order sustaining
demurrer is DENIED.
A. Plaintiff Fails to Show Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, or Excusable Neglect
Plaintiff's first argument for relief is that he was unaware that a demurrer had been filed or that his
counsel failed to oppose it. The argument lacks merit because it fails to demonstrate what Plaintiff
would have done if he had been aware of the demurrer. Plaintiff offers no argument that could have
defeated the demurrer. Further, since Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the time of the demurrer,
it was not up to Plaintiff to be aware of the demurrer. The motion fails to show any mistake, surprise,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect by Plaintiff.
1
Case Number: 17-CIV-01581
Further, Plaintiff fails to meet the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) ("Application
for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed
therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted").) Without any proposed opposition to
demurrer, the motion is deficient.
B. Plaintiff Fails to Show Entitlement to Mandatory Relief for Attorney Neglect.
Relief under section 473 is mandatory when the order taken against the party is the result of attorney
neglect. (Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 473 ("court shall" vacate any "dismissal entered against his client").)
That relief, however, requires "an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or neglect." The present motion does not include an attorney's affidavit.
Formal order to be prepared by City of San Bruno, signed, and filed.
Court adjourn.
Case Events
Others
Comments:
Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings
2
Document Filed Date
August 31, 2018
Case Filing Date
April 11, 2017
Category
(14) Unlimited Eminent Domain/Inv Cond
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Case Number: 17-CIV-01581 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center 1050 Mission Road Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080 www.sanmateocourt.org Minute Order SUBAR MANI vs. CITY OF SAN BRUNO, et al 17-CIV-01581 08/31/2018 10:45 AM Motion to Vacate Judgment Hearing Result: Held Judicial Officer: Karesh, Jonathan E. Location: Courtroom 8C Courtroom Clerk: Jada Obaob Courtroom Reporter: Megan Zalmai Parties Present CITY OF SAN BRUNO Defendant MANI, SUBAR Plaintiff ZAFFERANO, MARC L Attorney Exhibits Minutes Journals - Honorable Jonathan E. Karesh, Judge presiding. Clerk: Jada Obaob. Court Reporter: Megan Zalmai. Above-noted counsel and parties, present. Also present: John Beiers - County Counsel Manager. At 10:44, Hearing commences. Argument presented by counsel. Matter submitted. Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order: MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, AMENDED ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER, ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND BY PLAINITIFF TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff's motion to vacate judgment, amended order sustaining demurrer, and order sustaining demurrer is DENIED. A. Plaintiff Fails to Show Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, or Excusable Neglect Plaintiff's first argument for relief is that he was unaware that a demurrer had been filed or that his counsel failed to oppose it. The argument lacks merit because it fails to demonstrate what Plaintiff would have done if he had been aware of the demurrer. Plaintiff offers no argument that could have defeated the demurrer. Further, since Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the time of the demurrer, it was not up to Plaintiff to be aware of the demurrer. The motion fails to show any mistake, surprise, inadvertence, or excusable neglect by Plaintiff. 1 Case Number: 17-CIV-01581 Further, Plaintiff fails to meet the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) ("Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted").) Without any proposed opposition to demurrer, the motion is deficient. B. Plaintiff Fails to Show Entitlement to Mandatory Relief for Attorney Neglect. Relief under section 473 is mandatory when the order taken against the party is the result of attorney neglect. (Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 473 ("court shall" vacate any "dismissal entered against his client").) That relief, however, requires "an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect." The present motion does not include an attorney's affidavit. Formal order to be prepared by City of San Bruno, signed, and filed. Court adjourn. Case Events Others Comments: Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings 2