arrow left
arrow right
  • DOE vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA42: Unlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec) document preview
  • DOE vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA42: Unlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec) document preview
  • DOE vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA42: Unlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec) document preview
  • DOE vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA42: Unlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec) document preview
						
                                

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.