United Auto Credit Corporation v. All Credit Car Sales LLC

Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange

DEPT C20 TENTATIVE RULINGS

Judge Theodore Howard

The court will hear oral argument on all matters at the time notic ed for the hearing. If you would prefer to submit the matter on your papers without oral argument, please advise the clerk by calling (657) 622-5220. If no appearance is made by e ither party, the tentative ruling will be the final ruling. Rulings are normally posted on th e Internet by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing.

COURT REPORTERS WILL NO LONGER BE PROVIDED FOR TRIAL AND OTHE R HEARINGS WHERE LIVE EVIDENCE WILL BE PRESENTED. IF A P ARTY DESIRES A COURT REPORTER FOR ANY HEARING INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LAW AND MOTION MATTERS, EX PARTE MATTERS AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES, IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT PARTY TO PROVIDE ITS OWN COURT REPORTER. PARTIES MUST COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S POLICY ON THE USE OF PRO TEMPORE COURT REPORTERS WHICH CAN BE FOUND ON THE COURT’S WEBSITE AT: http://www.occourts.org/media/pdf/7-25- 2014_Privately_Retained_Court_Reporter_Policy.pdf

The Orange County Superior Court has implemented administrative orders, policies, and procedures noted on the Court’s website to address the limitations and restrictions presented during the COVID-19 pandemic at Civil Covid-19. Due to the fluid nature of this crisis, you are encouraged to frequently check the Co urt’s website at https://www.occourts.org for the most up to date information relating to Civil Operations.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, all Unlimited and Complex pro ceedings may be conducted via Zoom or in person. On the date of your hearing click the Department C20 Link to begin the remote online check in/Zoom appearance process:

https://occourtsapp.occourts.org/aci/checkin-results’dept=C20

Date: July 9, 2026

#

1. United Auto Credit Corporation v. All Credit Car Sales LLC 25-1529116 Before the court is an unopposed motion filed by attorneys at Adli Law Group, P.C. (“Attorneys”), requesting to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant All Credit Car Sales LLC (“Client”). The motion is tentatively GRANTED.

Attorneys have largely complied with the requirements of California Rule of Court 3.1362, and filed and served forms MC-051 and MC-052

on Client and on the other parties in this action. The court finds Attorneys have provided a valid and sufficient reason for requesting to be relieved as counsel for Client. However, Attorneys failed to file the requisite form MC-053, which is the order granting the requested relief.

Upon filing form MC-053, the court will GRANT the motion.

The court notes the order relieving counsel shall not be effective until Attorneys file with the court a proof of service showing the signed orders (specifically form MC-053) granting the motion have been served on Client. Until such time, Attorneys shall remain counsel of record.

Attorneys are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

2. Yoon v. Ross Stores, Inc. 26-1538080

Before the court is an unopposed motion filed by attorneys at BL Law Group APC (“Attorneys”), requesting to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiff All Jung Ho Yoon (“Client”). The motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1362, an attorney seeking to be relieved as counsel must file and serve forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. Although Attorneys filed and served forms MC-051 and MC- 052, Attorneys failed to file and serve form MC-053. Additionally, forms MC-051 and MC-052 are incomplete. For form MC-051, Attorneys failed to complete section 2(b) and 4. For form MC-052, Attorneys failed to complete sections 3 – 7.

The motion is denied without prejudice to Attorneys properly filling out the requisite sections and filing and serving all three forms on Plaintiff and the other parties who have appeared in this action.

Attorneys are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

3. Landgren v. Green Living 23-1305159 The motion of plaintiffs Douglas Landgren, Monique Landgren, and Brett Ivey move for leave to file a proposed first amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are to file the original first amended complaint as a separate filing and serve a copy within 5 Court days.

Discussion

Plaintiffs move for leave to to file a proposed first amended complaint, a copy of which is attached to the motion as Exhibit A. Defendant Shai Ades does not oppose the filing of the proposed first amended complaint but asks that any order granting leave be conditioned on requiring plaintiffs to appear for deposition on dates certain and producing all documents requested in the deposition notices.

Amendment to a pleading may be permitted by a court on such terms as may be just after notice to the adverse party. Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1). If the purpose or grounds for the amendment are not evident from the nature or content of the amendment, a declaration