Kalid Sanchez vs Los Banos Enterprise, et al.

25CV-06400 Kalid Sanchez vs Los Banos Enterprise, et al.

Motion to Compel Preparation and Transmission of the Record on Appeal

The motion to compel preparation and transmission of the record on appeal is DENIED. The motion is premature. The superior court has transmitted a copy of Plaintiff’s designation of the record to the appellate court and is within the allowable time period for preparation of the record. There is no evidence of any delay, intentional or otherwise, by the clerk’s office.

Under California Rules of Court, rule 8.122, the clerk’s office has 30 days to prepare the record. Yet, Plaintiff filed the instant motion a mere two days after the clerk’s office prepared notice to the parties of the estimated cost to prepare the transcript, with a payment deadline of June 8, 2026, and noting Plaintiff’s filed fee waiver request.

Motion to Correct Minute Order Dated 5/14/2026

Plaintiff’s motion to correct the minute order dated May 14, 2026, is DENIED.

The Court has reviewed the May 14, 2026, minute order and the court record.

Plaintiff did not request oral argument in accordance with Local Rule 3.1(F). Local Rule 3.1(F) requires any party intending to appear to present oral argument following the posting of a tentative ruling to notify all parties by telephone or in person, and to notify the court by telephone, no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. Regardless of whether Defendant was notified, the record shows that the court was not notified as required. Accordingly, Plaintiff waived oral argument.

The Court finds the typographical error on Defendant’s form MC-010, wherein Defendant’s counsel inadvertently stated he was attorney for “Plaintiffs,” to be harmless error. In addition, although initially listed in the Register of Actions as being filed by Plaintiff, the error was found and corrected to indicate that the form was filed by Defendant. The errors were not material to any issue in this case.

Finally, there is evidentiary basis for the award of $6,278 in attorney’s fees. Here, Plaintiff conflates Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and their memorandum of costs on form MC-010. These are separate and distinct forms of compensation. In reviewing the motion for attorney’s fees, the Court did not consider form MC-010.

As for the mathematical support, Defendant provided redacted invoices totaling $5,153 and not $3,342.50 as asserted by Plaintiff. Furthermore, in addition to the $5,153, Defendant had initially requested an additional $1,875 for preparation of the motion and in anticipation of preparing a reply and attendance at the hearing. The Court found this request excessive and reduced the amount by two (2) hours, which resulted in a reduced award of $1,125. The result was a total award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,278.