Motion to Compel Disbursement of Undisputed Settlement Funds
Judge Benson – Law & Motion – Wednesday, July 8, 2026 @ 9:00 AM
1. 23CV02828 Sage, Bobbie v. Humes, David
EVENT: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (Defense Counsel)
The motion fails to comply with the notice requirements of CCP 1005. The proof of service states defendant and opposing counsel were served with the motion by mail on June 23, 2026. Factoring in the July 4 Court holiday (observed on July 3), June 23 is only 10 court days before the hearing. CCP 1005 requires a minimum 16 court days, plus an additional 5 calendar days for mailing. Additionally, although the motion references the mandatory Judicial Council form MC- 052, no such form was filed with the Court. Accordingly, the motion is continued to August 5, 2026 at 9:00am for counsel to file MC-052. Defense counsel shall provide notice to opposing counsel and Defendant of the continued hearing date and time.
2. 24CV02835 Thompson, Lawrence Jr et al v. General Motors, LLC
EVENT: Motion to Compel Disbursement of Undisputed Settlement Funds
Motion to Compel Disbursement of Undisputed Settlement Funds is DENIED. There is no legal basis providing the Court with authority to “compel disbursement of funds”.
3. 24CV04217 Schmidt, Aaron et al v. Ford Motor Company
EVENT: Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions, or in the Alternative, Issue Sanctions Against Plaintiff
Counsel is ordered to appear. The Court will hear from defense counsel as to whether they are available on any of the dates proposed by Plaintiffs in July for Mr. Schmidt’s deposition. If they are available, counsel shall inform the Court and opposing counsel as to which date they prefer, and Mr. Schmidt will be ordered to appear on that date. Failure to appear for deposition on that date by either Mr. Schmidt or his counsel will result in terminating sanctions upon further noticed motion. 1
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?”