Plaintiff to give notice of this ruling which shall include notice to Weyer, Crelling & Custer.
6. Balboa Capital Corp. v. Sasquatch Services LLC 25-1469145 (Off calendar) 7. LVNV Funding LLC v. Gomez 21-1219223
The motion to enforce settlement filed by plaintiff LVNV Funding LLC (Plaintiff) is CONTINUED TO JULY 30, 2026, AT 1:30 P.M. IN DEPARTMENT C20.
There is no proof of service filed showing defendant Jasmine Gomez (Defendant) was served with this motion.
The motion is therefore CONTINUED as stated above.
Plaintiff is ordered to file a proof of service showing Defendant was properly and timely served with the motion. Said proof of service shall be filed at least 5 court days prior to the hearing.
Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice.
8. Tapia v. The Regents of the University of California 24-1446222 Before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from Terminating Sanctions, etc., filed on 3/17/26 by Plaintiff Melissa Tapia in her individual capacity and in her capacity as decedent Luis Recinos’ successor-in-interest (“Plaintiff”).
The Motion is effectively a motion for relief under C.C.P. § 473(b), based upon an attorney declaration of fault regarding discovery violations that resulted in terminating sanctions. In that context, the application for mandatory relief would be in proper form if it demonstrated that verified discovery responses had been served, for all of the outstanding discovery. (See Rodriguez v. Brill (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 715, 729.) But Plaintiff’s motion does not comply, as Plaintiff’s counsel here has asserted only that compliance was anticipated. (ROA 225, Smith Decl., ¶ 19.) The Motion is therefore DENIED.
Counsel for Defendant Regents of the University of California is to give notice of this ruling.
9. Corzine v. Riemann 20-1133569
(Moot) 10. Long v. Glyder LLC 22-1275657 Before the Court is the Motion for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions, filed on 10/21/25 by Plaintiff Chen “Peter” Cheng Long (“Plaintiff”). The Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff concedes on reply that the portion of the motion seeking terminating sanctions is now moot. However, Plaintiff continues to assert that substantial monetary sanctions should be imposed on Defendant Stuart Solkow (“Solkow”) pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 128.5, 2023.010, and 2023.030.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff argues that sanctions are warranted under C.C.P. § 128.5 because Defendants engaged in misconduct by asserting meritless