Motion for leave to file a first amended complaint
Defendant who was required to file a timely objection to said costs. Defendant failed to do. (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1700(b)(1).) As there are no timely objections, nor evidence of a written agreement to extend the objection time, the costs are awarded in full.
The total sum of attorney fees and costs awarded to Plaintiff against Defendant is: $33,067.50 + $2,317.71 = $35,385.21.
Plaintiff to give notice.
3. Diamond PEO, LLC v. Accurate Connections, LLC 19-1082775 (Withdrawn) 4. Cicale v. LoanDepot.com, LLC 26-1544409 Before the Court is the unopposed application of attorney Emily Craiger to appear in this matter pro hac vice as counsel for defendant LoanDepot.com, LLC.
Ms. Craiger has complied with the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. Accordingly, the application is GRANTED.
Counsel for LoanDepot.com, LLC is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
5. Awesome Aminos, Inc. v. Vitapur, LLC 26-1543762 The Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed on 4/20/26 by Defendant Vitapur, LLC (“Defendant”) is DENIED.
Plaintiff Awesome Aminos, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) has met its initial burden to demonstrate facts justifying the exercise of personal jurisdiction here. (Rivelli v. Hemm (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 380, 393.) Plaintiff has shown that it is and throughout the relevant period was effectively the successor of the contracting entity, Awesome Aminos, LLC (“AA NV LLC”). (ROA 13, Ex. B; ROA 26, Exs. A, B; Geis Decl. ¶¶ 1, 2, 5-7.) Plaintiff has also shown that both entities operated out of California throughout the parties’ relationship. (Geis Decl., ¶¶ 2-7, 10.)
Plaintiff has also shown that Defendant repeatedly shipped product samples to California for approval, that the officer it did business with was in California, and that it knew that Mr. Geis travelled from California for their in-person meetings. (Geis Decl., ¶¶ 1-7, 10.) Plaintiff has thus shown that Defendant’s contacts with California, as to the contract at issue, were of a continuing nature, and that Defendant knew that the customer operated out of California. This action arises directly from those sales.
The circumstances thus demonstrate that Defendant purposefully availed itself of this forum.
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?”
The burden therefore shifts to Defendant to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction here would be unreasonable. It has failed to do so. The Motion to Quash is therefore DENIED.
Both sides’ Requests for Judicial Notice are GRANTED under Ev. Code §452(c), as to the existence of the records.
Plaintiff is to give notice of this ruling.
6. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Mitchell 25-1498917 The motion of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, not in its individual capacity but solely as Owner Trustee for the FLIC Residential
Mortgage Loan Trust 1 (Plaintiff) for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a)(1).)
On June 11, 2026, this motion came on for hearing and was continued to July 2, 2026, because although Defendant apparently served an opposition on Plaintiff, the opposition was not filed with the Court. The Court ordered Defendant to file the opposition within 7 days. Notice of the Court’s order was duly served on Defendant. (See ROA 64.) No opposition was timely filed with the Court.
Courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,” absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)
Plaintiff has shown the interests of justice would be served by allowing the amendment as Plaintiff merely seeks to add an alternative cause of action arising from the same set of facts and circumstances pled in the original complaint. There appears to be no prejudice that would result from the amendment as trial is not set to commence until February 2027.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
The First Amended Complaint is to be separately filed within 7 days of the date of this order.
7. Maixner v. Julie G. Duquette, M.D., A Medical Corporation 25-1493273 Plaintiff Susan Maixner’s (“Plaintiff”) unopposed Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions (“Motion”) against defendants Julie G. Duquette, M.D., and Julie G. Duquette, M.D. (“Defendants” together) is GRANTED.
The court previously ordered Defendants to serve initial responses to sets one of form interrogatories and requests for production on 04/08/26; monetary sanctions were also issued. (ROA 70.) Despite multiple attempts by Plaintiff’s counsel to obtain responses from Defendants, nothing has been served since the discovery requests were initially propounded and Defendants and their counsel have apparently refused to communicate with Plaintiff. This is in addition to Defendants refusing to comply with two prior court orders to participate in preparing a joint letter brief regarding the issues related to the discovery requests. (ROA 55, 64.)
Defendants’ prior refusal to participate and appear resulted in an Order to Show Cause re: Monetary Sanctions Against Defense Counsel for Failure to Comply with Court Order (ROA 64, 70), which Defendants did not appear at, and which resulted in additional monetary sanctions against defense counsel. Defendants have not made any appearance in this action since 12/05/25 and have apparently refused to communicate with Plaintiff regarding issues in this lawsuit.
The court finds Defendant has abused the discovery process by failing to respond to authorized methods of discovery and by disobeying direct court orders. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030.)