原来网上有一个非律普法，最近不知咋地歇菜了。害得我老农临时抱佛脚，也尝尝普法的滋味（这个普法，主要是自己学习哈）。普法，要像宣讲毛主席最新指示一样，最重要的是一字一句解释清楚，而不是遮遮盖盖，误导忽悠大众。

今日普法是：啥是Tentative Ruling （初步裁决），

Tentative Rulings - County of Alameda - Superior Court of California

What is a Tentative Ruling?

Prior to the hearing of a law and motion matter, the Court may issue a tentative ruling.  The tentative ruling will become the order of the Court, and no hearing will be held, unless a party contests the tentative ruling.

 

翻译：在法律或动议听证之前，法院可以签发初步裁决。如果没有人反对的话，听证取消，这个初步裁决即为法院命令。（普法完）

 

上次（9/22/15）裁决之后，小月欢呼雀跃，率先发表。老农后来指出：小羊撤销案子动议（一），小月完败。这次，小月学乖了，再不发声，因为明摆着，半年走了一个圈，又回到了6/22的原点。

 

比较一下这份裁决与同一动议的上一次裁决：绿色部分为相同，蓝色部分为意思一样，用词不同。紫红部分为不同。看来法官的活儿好做，只要抄抄以前的判决就可以了。

 

附：

Tentative Ruling （初步裁定：9/22/15）:

The Motion of Specially Appearing Defendant Wenbin Yang to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint for Defamation of Plaintiff Dongxiao Yue, pursuant to CCP § 418.10(a), is GRANTED IN PART.The Motion to Quash Service of the Summons is GRANTED. Plaintiff has not filed a sufficient Proof of Service of the Summons. Plaintiff's attempts to serve the Summons on Defendant in Toronto, Canada, have been insufficient.

 

The Motion to Quash for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court declines to address Defendant's contention that he is not properly subject to the Court's jurisdiction because he has not been properly served with the Summons.

 

The Court notes that Defendant can be served relatively easily. See CCP § 415.40.

 

Tentative Ruling （初步裁定：12/15/15）:

The Motion of Specially Appearing Defendant Wenbin Yang to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint for Defamation of Plaintiff Dongxiao Yue, pursuant to CCP § 418.10(a), is GRANTED IN PART. The Motion to Quash Service of the Summons is GRANTED. Plaintiff has not filed a sufficient Proof of Service of the Summons. Plaintiff's attempts to serve the Summons on Defendant in Toronto, Canada, have been insufficient.

Motion to Quash for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court declines to consider Defendant's contention that it lacks personal jurisdiction over him until he has been properly served with the Summons.

Plaintiff is not permitted to employ the methods for serving Defendant under the California Code of Civil Procedure because state law is preempted by the provisions of the Hague Convention. The full text of the applicable provisions of the Hague Convention can be found on the United States Department of State website (http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/judicial/service-of-process.html).

Defendant's alternative

The Court also declines to make any orders with respect to the procedures for conducting pretrial discovery. That request is also premature under the circumstances.