On May 10, 2016 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Doe, John,
and
The Regents Of The University Of California,
for 42: Unlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec)
in the District Court of Yolo County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF YOLO
CIVIL LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER
HON: DANIEL M WOLK DATE: 09/28/2020
CASE NO: CV-2016-765 TIME: 9:00 AM
TITLE: DOE VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
PROCEEDINGS: *MOTION *+* Frudmen
CLERK: Piper Noto REPORTER: C- Hora bucla
APPEARANCES 190) Tentative ruling adopted; see attached
1OPlaintiff Present
Dsit WARRANT ORDERS
2AWiBy Attys: N. AmcWwnw 1 O Debtor failed to appear; Warrant of Body
Attachment ordered; Bail set $
30Defendant Present 2 O Stay issuance of warrant until next hearing,
Os/t creditor to send warning letter to debtor
4 AWiby Attys: Gs tx {un Maaus | 3 O Warrant of body attachment recalled
NEXT SCHEDULED APPEARANCE DISMISSALS
1 ODate |.294. 3) Time. jo. ao 1 O Case ordered dismissed
For_ unt Dept q
Owith Owithout prejudice
2 GDate: |-2%-2\ Time |: 2 O Case ordered dismissed for lack of
For. wn} Dept. a prosecution (DLP)
3 QJury OCourt Trial OTime Est. 3 O Party dismissed (PDS)
Date. Time. Dept
4 OSettlement Conference
Date Time. Dept. RULINGS
5 OTrial Readiness Conference 1 O Court ordered temporary orders remain in
Date. Time. Dept. effect pending further hearing
4 1 Continued by Court’s Motion (CTC) 2 O Court granted restraining order effective
5 O Continuance requested by party(s) (CPM) until . Defendant ordered to stay
By:
yards away from plaintiff.
6 OI Notice waived
Other. PAY Waquie \e
MOTION/ORDERS
1 O Cause ordered off calendar —ehen bx qnetnk.
Orequest of Ono p/s filed
3 O Default ordered
40 Proceed by offer of proof
5 O Stipulation reached Wf
6 DO Submitted on the pleadings \\-1a!2o
Qwith argument Owithout argument
7 G Taken under submission (USD) Reeponte Ave. \2.1N.20
Motion/Petn/App
Ogranted (MOTG) denied (MOTD) \ainh 5 veply 42
100 Claim of exempt NIED, $$ released to
creditor
110 Claim of exempt GRANTED, $$ released to
debtor
120 Debtor sworn and released
160 Settlement conference held; case settled
Z7
( Si )
Trial confirmed; no settlement reached
Tentative ruling posted (TD)
TENTATIVE RULING
CASE: Doe v. The Regents of the University of California
Case No. CV PT 16-765
Hearing Date: September 28, 2020 Department Nine 9:00 a.m.
John Doe’s motion to augment is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (e).) The general
tule is that a hearing on a writ of administrative mandamus is conducted solely on the record of
the proceeding before the administrative agency.” (Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle
Bd. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 872, 881.) Augmentation of the administrative record is permitted
only within the strict limits set forth in section 1094.5, subdivision (e). (Pomona Valley Hosp.
Med. Ctr. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 93,101.) Doe has failed to establish that the
evidence is relevant, that he could not with reasonable diligence have produced the evidence at
the hearing, or that it was improperly excluded at the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd.
(e).)
The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court’s tentative ruling system as required
by Local Rule 11.4(b). Counsel for moving party, or the moving party if unrepresented by
counsel, is ordered to notify the opposing party or parties immediately of the tentative ruling
system.
If no hearing is requested, and no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling is effective
immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312 or further notice is
required.
Document Filed Date
September 28, 2020
Case Filing Date
May 10, 2016
Category
42: Unlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.