Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
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.
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?”
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].)