Anaheim Chamber of Commerce vs. Anaheim/Orange County Visitor & Convention Bureau

103 Anaheim Chamber of Commerce vs. Anaheim/Orange County Visitor & Convention Bureau

2025-01499697 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Plaintiff Anaheim Chamber of Commerce’s application for pro hac vice admission of attorney Jonathan Ibsen is GRANTED.

On or before the anniversary of the date of this order, if this attorney remains counsel for the moving party, the moving party must pay an annual renewal fee of five hundred dollars ($500) for each year that the attorney maintains pro hac vice status in this case. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (e)(2).)

Moving party shall provide notice. 104 Andrawes Husary vs. Shahidi

2025-01487294 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Consistent with the Court’s previous 5/5/2026 order staying all case deadlines and future hearings for a period of 45 days (ROA #75), Specially Appearing Defendants John Shahidi; Nelk, Inc.; Metacard, LLC; Nelk USA, Inc.; and Kyle Forgeard’s application for pro hac vice admission of attorney Brian M. French is CONTINUED to 07/02/2026 at 02:00 PM in Department CX102.

Clerk to give notice. 105 Bojorquez vs. Hood Pacific Contractors, Inc.

2025-01492976 1. Petition to Compel Arbitration 2. Case Management Conference

Defendant Hood Pacific Contractors, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. [CCP], § 1281.2; see also ROA #25 [Hood Decl.], passim; ROA #31 [Rocha Decl.], Exhs. A-C.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff Jose Bojorquez filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. (ROA #56.) Plaintiff “does not oppose entry of an order compelling arbitration of any claims the Court determines are subject to arbitration,” but Plaintiff “requests that the Court either (1) decline to dismiss the operative complaint and stay the action at this time, or (2) defer any determination regarding dismissal and/or a stay until after the Court has ruled on Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint currently set for hearing on July 23, 2026.” (Id.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s notice of non-opposition concedes that the arbitration agreement exists, as Plaintiff presents no arguments or evidence