Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication
TENTATIVE RULINGS July 13, 2026
# Case Name Tentative
102 2025-01461255 1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 2. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Paco Ventures LLC vs. Ford The motions by Plaintiff Paco Ventures LLC (“Plaintiff”) for an order compelling Defendant Foundation Ford Foundation Drilling LLC (“Ford”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Drilling, LLC Interrogatories, Set One, number 17.1 as it relates to Plaintiff’s Request for Admission numbers 5-8 and an order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 21-23 are DENIED.
Request for sanctions are denied.
Ford is ordered to give notice.
103 2025-01469411 1. Motion for Attorney Fees 2. Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal on Settled Case Hopper vs. Hyundai Motor Plaintiff General Hopper’s motion for award of attorneys’ fees and costs is granted. America Plaintiff is awarded fees of $18,870 and costs of $555.05. The Court reduced the attorneys’ fees for time billed for clerical work.
Plaintiff is ordered to prepare a proposed judgment, including the costs in the amount ordered.
The Court intends on dismissing this matter with prejudice in light of the fact that this matter has settled. If Plaintiff opposes the Court’s tentative ruling in this regard, Plaintiff’s counsel should attend the hearing and be prepared to address the OSC.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of this ruling.
104 2025-01475861 1. Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication 2. Case Management Conference American Express National Bank vs. Plaintiff American Express National Bank (“Plaintiff”) seeks summary judgment on Torres Plaintiff’s sole cause of action for breach of contract alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Ricardo M. Torres (“Defendant”).
As an initial matter, the Court notes Defendant’s address on Plaintiff’s proof of service for the notice of motion and moving papers does not match Defendant’s address on the caption of Defendant’s answer. (Proof of Service, ROA No. 31; Answer, ROA No. 9.) However, the address matches the address on Defendant’s opposition to this motion. (Defendant’s Opposition, ROA No. 51; Defendant’s Separate Statement, ROA No. 50; Defendant’s Declaration, ROA No. 52.) Defendant timely opposed the motion without objecting to service. Defendant is directed to confirm whether Defendant’s address is 1805 S. Garnsey St. or 1806 S. Garney St.
The Court also notes Defendant served his opposition papers by mail. However,
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?”
Defendant’s proofs of service did not state the place of deposit in the mail as required under CCP section 1013a, subdivision (1). “In making service by mail there must be a strict compliance with sections 1012, 1013 and 1013a.” (Forslund v. Forslund (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 476, 485.) Plaintiff did not file any reply. Plaintiff should be prepared to discuss whether Plaintiff received Defendant’s opposition papers and whether Plaintiff objects to service of Defendant’s opposition papers.
Furthermore, it appears that some of the citations set forth in Defendant’s memorandum of points and authorities (ROA 51) cite some cases that the Court was unable to locate or are cites to a different case. For example, Defendant cites to Gonzalez v. Commercial Credit Corporation, 215 Cal. App.4th 1, 7 (2013), asserting in that case “the court held that when there is a dispute about the statute of limitations, summary judgment is inappropriate.” The citation to 215 Cal.App.4th 1 is the case of In re T.G. which is a dependency case addressing the termination of parental rights. Defendant should be prepared to address the aforementioned with the Court at the hearing.
105 2025-01528233 1. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 2. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Veritiv Landsberg 3. Case Management Conference vs. Folmer The Applications of Bill Morrison, Esq. and Benjamin G. Goodman, Esq. of the law firm of Haynes and Boone, LLP for an order allowing them to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ernest Packaging, and Defendants Jon Kemmer, Frank Lodato, and Clifton Folmer is granted.
Counsel have complied with CRC Rule 9.40. Accordingly, Counsels’ unopposed Applications are granted.
The case management conference is continued to August 24, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department C27.
Defendants shall give notice.
106 2020-01129890 1. Motion to Tax Costs 2. Motion to Tax Costs Farah vs. Dearmin 3. Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal
A. Motion to Strike re: Harris and Dearmin’s Memorandum of Costs
The Court grants in part Plaintiffs Michael P. Farah, individually and doing business as Farah Advisory Services of Newport Beach and The Eric Wyser Charitable Trust (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) Motion to strike portions of Defendants Grace C. Dearmin and Terese Harris’s Memorandum of Costs (ROA 1295), as set forth below.
Legal Standard
Allowable costs must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2); see Moss v. Underwriters' Report (1938) 12 Cal.2d 266, 274; Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 [whether cost item was reasonable and necessary presents question of fact for trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion].)