The Honorable Earl H. Maas III

San Diego County Superior Court, Department NC-28

Biography

The Hon. Earl H. Maas III is a judge for the Superior Court of San Diego County in California. He was appointed to the bench by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, filling a vacancy created by the retirement of the Hon. Bernard E. Revak.

Maas earned a bachelor’s degree from San Diego State University. He then received a J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law.

Prior to his appointment to the bench, Maas pursued a fifteen-year career in legal malpractice defense. He first worked as an associate at Chapin, Shea, McNitt & Carter before becoming a partner at Maas, Miyamoto & Bernstein. He has also worked as a shareholder for Thompson, Alessio, & Maas.

He is registered as a Republican.

Recent Rulings by Hon. Earl H. Maas III

  • MOORE VS ALAMILLO

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to discovery is ordered off calendar. Pursuant to the 10/28/20 ex parte order, moving papers were required to be filed by 11/6/20. "The moving party shall promptly call the independent calendar clerk if a matter will not be heard on the scheduled date.....Fail...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel answers to special interrogatories by Defendant Fang-Luan Wu (ROA 131, 157, 182) is denied. Plaintiff alleges that on 8/12/20, Defendant served a response but the verification was undated. In the supporting memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiff states that he is seeki...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further production of documents ("RPD") , nos. 1-60 as to Defendant Li Yuan Larry Wu [ROA 103, 165, 174] is denied. Plaintiff failed to file a separate statement with his motion as is required by CRC 3.1345(a). Although Plaintiff correctly notes that CCP § 2031.210(b)(3), effec...

  • BARTOK VS PETER

     |  San Diego County

    The motion of Jeffrey D. Poindexter to be relieved as attorney of record for Defendant Peter Martin is granted. Counsel is relieved upon the filing of a proof of service of the signed order upon Defendant.

    ...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to requests for admission ("RFA") and form interrogatory 17.1 by Defendant Fang-Luan Wu (ROA 132, 159, 180) is denied.

    Plaintiff alleges that on 8/12/20, Defendant served a response but the verification was undated. In the supporting memorandum of poin...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    The motion of Defendants Shun-Shou Wu and Fang-Luan Wu to compel Plaintiff's attendance at deposition and extend the length of time of Plaintiff's deposition (ROA 125, 137, 178) is granted. Plaintiff shall appear for deposition either in person or by video conference other than Zoom, at Plaintiff's option,...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to requests for admission ("RFA") and form interrogatory 17.1 by Defendant Fang-Luan Wu (ROA 132, 159, 180) is denied.

    Plaintiff alleges that on 8/12/20, Defendant served a response but the verification was undated. In the supporting memorandum of poin...

  • PAUL BUSSMANN VS S-H OPCO CARLSBAD LLC

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is denied as moot in light of the service of supplemental responses on 11/6/20. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied. It was not reasonable for Plaintiff to demand supplemental responses to the voluminous discovery 7 days afte...

  • PAUL BUSSMANN VS S-H OPCO CARLSBAD LLC

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents is denied as moot in light of the service of supplemental responses on 11/6/20. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied. It was not reasonable for Plaintiff to demand supplemental responses to the voluminous discovery...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories nos. 1-204 (ROA 102, 163, 172) directed to Defendant Li Yuan Larry Wu is denied.

    An initial unverified response containing objections only was served on 6/23/20. No verification was required. Defendant agreed to serve a suppl...

  • BARTOK VS PETER

     |  San Diego County

    The motion of Jeffrey D. Poindexter to be relieved as attorney of record for Defendant Peter Martin is granted. Counsel is relieved upon the filing of a proof of service of the signed order upon Defendant.

    ...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to deem requests admitted ("RFA") nos. 1-70 by Defendant Li Yuan Larry Wu or alternatively, to compel responses without objections (ROA 104, 164, 173), is denied. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c), the court shall grant a motion to deem requests admitted unless it finds that the party to who...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further production of documents ("RPD") , nos. 1-60 as to Defendant Li Yuan Larry Wu [ROA 103, 165, 174] is denied. Plaintiff failed to file a separate statement with his motion as is required by CRC 3.1345(a). Although Plaintiff correctly notes that CCP § 2031.210(b)(3), effec...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel answers to special interrogatories by Defendant Fang-Luan Wu (ROA 131, 157, 182) is denied. Plaintiff alleges that on 8/12/20, Defendant served a response but the verification was undated. In the supporting memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiff states that he is seeki...

  • NAPOLI VS BEST AMERICAN HOSPITALITY CORP

     |  San Diego County

    The motion of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Yvonne Ashley for trial preference is granted. CCP § 36(a). Trial is set for March 26, 2021, 9:15 a.m., Department 28. The trial readiness conference shall be heard on March 12, 2020, 9:15 a.m., Department 28. The discovery cut-off date is March 5, 2021. Expert dis...

  • PAUL BUSSMANN VS S-H OPCO CARLSBAD LLC

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is denied as moot in light of the service of supplemental responses on 11/6/20. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied. It was not reasonable for Plaintiff to demand supplemental responses to the voluminous discovery 7 days after t...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    The motion of Defendants Shun-Shou Wu and Fang-Luan Wu to compel Plaintiff's attendance at deposition and extend the length of time of Plaintiff's deposition (ROA 125, 137, 178) is granted. Plaintiff shall appear for deposition either in person or by video conference other than Zoom, at Plaintiff's option,...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories nos. 1-204 (ROA 102, 163, 172) directed to Defendant Li Yuan Larry Wu is denied.

    An initial unverified response containing objections only was served on 6/23/20. No verification was required. Defendant agreed to serve a suppl...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents ("RPD") (ROA 133, 155, 181) by Defendant Fang-Luan Wu is denied.

    Plaintiff alleges that on 8/12/20, Defendant served a response but the verification was undated. In the supporting memorandum of points and authorit...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to deem requests admitted ("RFA") nos. 1-70 by Defendant Li Yuan Larry Wu or alternatively, to compel responses without objections (ROA 104, 164, 173), is denied. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c), the court shall grant a motion to deem requests admitted unless it finds that the party to who...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents ("RPD") (ROA 133, 155, 181) by Defendant Fang-Luan Wu is denied.

    Plaintiff alleges that on 8/12/20, Defendant served a response but the verification was undated. In the supporting memorandum of points and authorit...

  • ANDERSON VS. YOSHIDA

     |  San Diego County

    The motion of Defendant Jennifer Yoshida to set aside default is granted. Although Defendant is correct and the motion does not identify the authority on which relief is sought, Defendant has made a sufficient showing of mistake or excusable neglect. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b). Defendant is also...

  • CORTEZ VS. ZHANG

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file first amended complaint is continued on the Court's own motion to November 20, 2020, 1:30 pm, Department 28 due to the Court's unavailability.

    ...

  • CORTEZ VS. ZHANG

     |  San Diego County

    The unopposed motion of Defendant Noelle Zhang for an order deeming matters admitted is granted in part subject to the filing of an amended proof of service which lists the motion papers served on Plaintiff Pedro Cortez. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(b). The motion is denied as to request for adm...

  • See More Results

Recent Rulings by Hon. Earl H. Maas III

  • MOORE VS ALAMILLO

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to discovery is ordered off calendar. Pursuant to the 10/28/20 ex parte order, moving papers were required to be filed by 11/6/20. "The moving party shall promptly call the independent calendar clerk if a matter will not be heard on the scheduled date.....Fail...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel answers to special interrogatories by Defendant Fang-Luan Wu (ROA 131, 157, 182) is denied. Plaintiff alleges that on 8/12/20, Defendant served a response but the verification was undated. In the supporting memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiff states that he is seeki...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further production of documents ("RPD") , nos. 1-60 as to Defendant Li Yuan Larry Wu [ROA 103, 165, 174] is denied. Plaintiff failed to file a separate statement with his motion as is required by CRC 3.1345(a). Although Plaintiff correctly notes that CCP § 2031.210(b)(3), effec...

  • BARTOK VS PETER

     |  San Diego County

    The motion of Jeffrey D. Poindexter to be relieved as attorney of record for Defendant Peter Martin is granted. Counsel is relieved upon the filing of a proof of service of the signed order upon Defendant.

    ...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to requests for admission ("RFA") and form interrogatory 17.1 by Defendant Fang-Luan Wu (ROA 132, 159, 180) is denied.

    Plaintiff alleges that on 8/12/20, Defendant served a response but the verification was undated. In the supporting memorandum of poin...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    The motion of Defendants Shun-Shou Wu and Fang-Luan Wu to compel Plaintiff's attendance at deposition and extend the length of time of Plaintiff's deposition (ROA 125, 137, 178) is granted. Plaintiff shall appear for deposition either in person or by video conference other than Zoom, at Plaintiff's option,...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to requests for admission ("RFA") and form interrogatory 17.1 by Defendant Fang-Luan Wu (ROA 132, 159, 180) is denied.

    Plaintiff alleges that on 8/12/20, Defendant served a response but the verification was undated. In the supporting memorandum of poin...

  • PAUL BUSSMANN VS S-H OPCO CARLSBAD LLC

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is denied as moot in light of the service of supplemental responses on 11/6/20. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied. It was not reasonable for Plaintiff to demand supplemental responses to the voluminous discovery 7 days afte...

  • PAUL BUSSMANN VS S-H OPCO CARLSBAD LLC

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents is denied as moot in light of the service of supplemental responses on 11/6/20. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied. It was not reasonable for Plaintiff to demand supplemental responses to the voluminous discovery...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories nos. 1-204 (ROA 102, 163, 172) directed to Defendant Li Yuan Larry Wu is denied.

    An initial unverified response containing objections only was served on 6/23/20. No verification was required. Defendant agreed to serve a suppl...

  • BARTOK VS PETER

     |  San Diego County

    The motion of Jeffrey D. Poindexter to be relieved as attorney of record for Defendant Peter Martin is granted. Counsel is relieved upon the filing of a proof of service of the signed order upon Defendant.

    ...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to deem requests admitted ("RFA") nos. 1-70 by Defendant Li Yuan Larry Wu or alternatively, to compel responses without objections (ROA 104, 164, 173), is denied. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c), the court shall grant a motion to deem requests admitted unless it finds that the party to who...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further production of documents ("RPD") , nos. 1-60 as to Defendant Li Yuan Larry Wu [ROA 103, 165, 174] is denied. Plaintiff failed to file a separate statement with his motion as is required by CRC 3.1345(a). Although Plaintiff correctly notes that CCP § 2031.210(b)(3), effec...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel answers to special interrogatories by Defendant Fang-Luan Wu (ROA 131, 157, 182) is denied. Plaintiff alleges that on 8/12/20, Defendant served a response but the verification was undated. In the supporting memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiff states that he is seeki...

  • NAPOLI VS BEST AMERICAN HOSPITALITY CORP

     |  San Diego County

    The motion of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Yvonne Ashley for trial preference is granted. CCP § 36(a). Trial is set for March 26, 2021, 9:15 a.m., Department 28. The trial readiness conference shall be heard on March 12, 2020, 9:15 a.m., Department 28. The discovery cut-off date is March 5, 2021. Expert dis...

  • PAUL BUSSMANN VS S-H OPCO CARLSBAD LLC

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is denied as moot in light of the service of supplemental responses on 11/6/20. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied. It was not reasonable for Plaintiff to demand supplemental responses to the voluminous discovery 7 days after t...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    The motion of Defendants Shun-Shou Wu and Fang-Luan Wu to compel Plaintiff's attendance at deposition and extend the length of time of Plaintiff's deposition (ROA 125, 137, 178) is granted. Plaintiff shall appear for deposition either in person or by video conference other than Zoom, at Plaintiff's option,...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories nos. 1-204 (ROA 102, 163, 172) directed to Defendant Li Yuan Larry Wu is denied.

    An initial unverified response containing objections only was served on 6/23/20. No verification was required. Defendant agreed to serve a suppl...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents ("RPD") (ROA 133, 155, 181) by Defendant Fang-Luan Wu is denied.

    Plaintiff alleges that on 8/12/20, Defendant served a response but the verification was undated. In the supporting memorandum of points and authorit...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to deem requests admitted ("RFA") nos. 1-70 by Defendant Li Yuan Larry Wu or alternatively, to compel responses without objections (ROA 104, 164, 173), is denied. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c), the court shall grant a motion to deem requests admitted unless it finds that the party to who...

  • WU VS WU

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents ("RPD") (ROA 133, 155, 181) by Defendant Fang-Luan Wu is denied.

    Plaintiff alleges that on 8/12/20, Defendant served a response but the verification was undated. In the supporting memorandum of points and authorit...

  • ANDERSON VS. YOSHIDA

     |  San Diego County

    The motion of Defendant Jennifer Yoshida to set aside default is granted. Although Defendant is correct and the motion does not identify the authority on which relief is sought, Defendant has made a sufficient showing of mistake or excusable neglect. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b). Defendant is also...

  • CORTEZ VS. ZHANG

     |  San Diego County

    Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file first amended complaint is continued on the Court's own motion to November 20, 2020, 1:30 pm, Department 28 due to the Court's unavailability.

    ...

  • CORTEZ VS. ZHANG

     |  San Diego County

    The unopposed motion of Defendant Noelle Zhang for an order deeming matters admitted is granted in part subject to the filing of an amended proof of service which lists the motion papers served on Plaintiff Pedro Cortez. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(b). The motion is denied as to request for adm...

  • See More Results

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.