Motion to Quash Service of Summons
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 Diamond PEO, LLC v. Accurate Connections, LLC 19-1082775 (Withdrawn) 4.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