Motion for order permitting filing of corrected memorandum of costs summary and worksheet
All counsel and self-represented parties appearing remotely must check-in online through the court’s civil video appearance website at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) before the designated hearing time. Once the online check-in is completed, participants will be prompted to join the courtroom’s Zoom hearing session. Participants will initially be directed to a virtual waiting room pending the start of their specific video hearing. Check-in instructions and instructional video are available at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) The Court’s “Appearance Procedures and Information--Civil Unlimited and Complex” and “Guidelines for Remote Appearances” also are available at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) Those procedures and guidelines will be strictly enforced.
Public Access: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings. Members of the media or public may obtain access to law and motion hearings in this department by either coming to the department at the designated hearing time or contacting the courtroom clerk at (657) 622-5618 to obtain login information. For remote appearances by the media or public, please contact the courtroom clerk 24 hours in advance so as not to interrupt the hearings.
NO FILMING, BROADCASTING, PHOTOGRAPHY, OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING IS PERMITTED OF THE VIDEO SESSION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 1.150 AND ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULE 180.
# Case Name Tentative
1. 2025-1514110 The motion by James Ling of Ling Law Group, APC, to be relieved Consumers as counsel of record for defendant Pen Manufacturing, LLC, is Pipe & Supply granted. Co. vs. Pen Manufacturing Upon the signing of the order, counsel shall serve the signed order, LLC on the client and all parties that have appeared. James Ling of Ling Law Group, APC will be relieved as counsel of record for defendant Pen Manufacturing, LLC, effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client and all parties.
Ling Law Group, APC is ordered to give notice of the ruling.
2. 2024-1394324 Plaintiff Jenna Meador’s Motion for Order Permitting Filing of Meador vs. Corrected Memorandum of Costs Summary and Worksheet is Bricks and granted. Mortar Entertainment Plaintiff moves, under CCP section 473, for an order permitting the LLC filing of the corrected memorandum of costs filed on 3/10/26. (See ROA 312, 314.) Plaintiff explains that the “total costs” claimed remains $14,106.07 (as claimed in the original memorandum of costs summary (ROA 266)), but the original memorandum of costs
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?”
summary and worksheet “contained an error in omitting deposition costs at line 4 due to computer error.” (ROA 310 [Not. of Errata at p. 1].)
CCP section 473, subdivision (b), provides, in relevant part, that the court may, “upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b), emphasis added.)
The application “shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Id.)
“The law favors judgments based on the merits, not procedural missteps”; thus, “doubts must be resolved in favor of relief, with an order denying relief scrutinized more carefully that an order granting it.” (Lasalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127, 134.)
The Court finds it is in the interests of justice to grant relief, here, because: Plaintiff’s counsel has provided a reasonable explanation for the circumstances that caused the error; the motion was made within a reasonable time; the total costs claimed have not changed (and the error appears to be largely clerical); and, Defendant will not be unduly prejudiced because it will have a full and fair opportunity to challenge the corrected memorandum.
Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.
3. 2025-1488244 Plaintiff Armen Oozoonian’s motion to set aside the dismissal Oozoonian vs. entered on February 19, 2026, is granted. Innovative Service Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) includes a Technology mandatory relief or “attorney fault” provision, which requires the Management court to vacate a dismissal or order, if a motion or application for Services, Inc. relief from the dismissal or order (1) is filed “no more than six months after entry of judgment,” (2) is “in proper form,” and (3) is accompanied by an attorney’s affidavit of fault, unless the court finds that the default judgment or dismissal was not caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. (Dollase v.
Wanu Water, Inc. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1315, 1322-1323.) Additionally, the policy of the law is to have every litigated case tried on its merits and any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from dismissal. (Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, 696.)