Marchall v. Creative Interior Center, Inc.

# Case Name Tentative

financial elder abuse. Therefore, the motion to strike allegations related to elder abuse is DENIED.

Defendants do not state what duplicative causes of action it seeks to strike. Therefore, the motion as to this issue is also DENIED.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

Plaintiff Domenic Valvano’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

Plaintiff seeks an order striking defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike for failing to engage in a meaningful meet and confer prior to filing their Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike.

The court acknowledges Defendants’ failure to comply with the Code—which is why these hearings were continued. But failing to meet and confer is no basis to refuse to address the merits of the demurrer or motion to strike. C.C.P. §§ 430.41(a)(4), 435.5(a)(4).

Accordingly, the Motion to Strike Defendants’ Demurrer and Motion to Strike is DENIED.

The Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED in limited part.

Plaintiff has established that defendants failed to properly serve the motions on calendar today, obligating counsel to retrieve a set from the court’s system. Plaintiff incurred $60.06 in fees for those efforts, which is the amount the court imposes as sanctions against defendants. Defendants are ordered to pay such sanctions to Plaintiff within 20 days.

All other requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

The parties are ordered to comply with their obligations to serve the other side with court filings.

Defendants shall answer the complaint within 5 days.

The case management conference is continued to November 16, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.

52. Marchall v. Plaintiffs George Marshall, Norvoc Bioscience, Inc., and Creative Herbalmax, Inc.’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Interior Complaint is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); Center, Inc. Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [“policy of great liberality in permitting amendments”].)

# Case Name Tentative

2023- Moving parties shall separately electronically file and serve the 01339723 proposed Second Amended Complaint (Ex. A to moving papers), within five days. Separate e-filing is required to ensure the pleading is properly indexed in the court’s electronic filing system.

The trial date is continued to October 26, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department C28. Discovery is to remain open based on the new trial date.

The court considered the late-filed opposition and reply.

Moving parties shall give notice of this ruling.

53. Bialas v. Plaintiff Michael Robb Bialas’s motion for attorney fees and General costs is GRANTED in the total amount of $12,424.90, Motors LLC consisting of $10,868.50 in attorney fees and $1,556.40 in costs. (See Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).) 2025- 01489084 Attorney fees. There is no dispute that plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action for purposes of attorney fees and costs. (See Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d); Wohlgemuth v. Caterpillar Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1259-1264; see also Kay Decl. ¶¶ 13-14; Morrow Decl. ¶ 7; Mtn. Memo. P&As at p. 1.) Further, defendant does not challenge the reasonableness of the rates charged.

The court finds that all of the hours claimed were reasonably incurred in conduct of this litigation, contrary to defendant’s contentions. (See Morrow Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 1 [time records].)

As for the time requested to take the deposition of defendant’s PMK, defendant’s recitation of events is incomplete. On 11/6/25, the day after the PMK deposition, plaintiff’s counsel (1) spoke with their plaintiff “re settlement/acceptance,” and (2) informed defendant that plaintiff would accept their offer to repurchase the vehicle. (Morrow Decl. at Ex. 1 [11/6/25 entries]; Kay Decl. ¶ 12.) The final settlement breakdown and formal release and settlement agreement came much later, and plaintiff did not execute the settlement and release until 1/26/26. (Kay Decl. ¶ 14; see Morrow Decl. at Ex. 1 [11/2025-1/2026 entries].)

As such, plaintiff was entitled to take the PMK deposition when he did and did not act unreasonably in proceeding with it. It is not uncommon for settlement negotiations to fall through, and plaintiff was not required to continue the deposition merely because the parties were contemplating settlement.