MOTION TO DISMISS
• Item No. 1: Filing and Motion Fees – $9.00; • Item No. 14: Fees for Electronic Filing or Service – $40.25; • Item No. 15 – Other (Courtesy Copies) – $273.70; • Item No. 15 – Other (Appearance Attorneys) – $65.00.
After fulling considering the motion, opposition, and reply, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for the reasons stated therein.
8. ZIMMER VS. UNITED DOMINION REALTY TRUST, INC. 2025-01511185 DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
Stephanie Catanach’s Demurrer is MOOT. Catanach was dismissed with prejudice on July 6, 2026 pursuant to a signed stipulation. Thus, she is no longer a defendant to this lawsuit and her demurrer is moot.
9. CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC. VS. SOLAR 360 BUILDING SERVICES, INC 2025-01451997 MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY
Plaintiff Consolidated Electrical Distribution, Inc.’s Motion to Substitute Its Attorney of Record is GRANTED. Samantha R. Riggen, Esq. of Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP is ORDERED substituted in as counsel of record for Plaintiff. “The attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination, as follows: [¶] Upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 284.) “It has long been recognized in this state that the client's power to discharge an attorney, with or without cause, is absolute.” (Fracasse v. Brent (1972) 6 Cal.3d 784, 790.) Plaintiff’s credit manager states in his declaration it is Plaintiff’s intention to substitute Riggen for prior counsel Michael I. Wayne, Esq. of Law Offices of Michael I. Wayne APC after losing contact with Wayne. (Johnson Decl., ¶¶ 5-8.)
10. HALBERDA VS. HIDDEN CANYON ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 2022-01299111
MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants John Alevizos and Georgia Alevizos’s (the Alevizoses) Motion to Dismiss and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. The Court exercises its discretion to dismiss the action as to the Alevizoses only after all issues as to the Alevizoses have been dismissed pursuant to this Court’s May 19, 2026, ruling on demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581
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?”
Alevizoses and Plaintiffs. (Estate of Gonzalez (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1598, 1601-1602.)
11. GUNN VS. GREEN MEADOWS HOME HEALTH CARE, INC 2023-01370855 1. MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is CONTINUED to August 4, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.
The Court has reviewed the in camera supplemental declarations of Dawn M. Smith and Daniel Lopez Revelez in response to the Court’s 6/23/26 order. The declarations demonstrate Plaintiff Lucia Gunn was, at an earlier stage of the litigation, able to communicate and participate in the litigation. The declarations also show that counsel engaged in reasonable efforts to present an accurate declaration from Ms. Gunn regarding her condition in advance of the mandatory settlement conference in June 2025.
However, counsel should have maintained regular communication with Ms. Gunn and updated the Court and opposing counsel promptly when Ms. Gunn became unable to communicate or participate meaningfully in the action. The Court intends to issue a final ruling regarding sanctions at the continued hearing on 8/4/26.
It appears Ms. Gunn now lacks capacity to participate in the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 372, 373; see In Re Sara D. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 661, 665-666.)
Ms. Smith’s declaration states that it is infeasible for a family member to be appointed as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem in this case. However, the Code of Civil Procedure does not limit a guardian ad litem to a plaintiff’s family member.
Plaintiff’s counsel shall appear in person at the hearing prepared to discuss why Plaintiff’s husband cannot serve as guardian ad litem and whether another third party, such as an attorney with another law firm, could be retained to serve as a guardian ad litem for the remainder of this litigation. The Court expects Ms. Smith to make all reasonable efforts to obtain a guardian ad litem and to file and serve a declaration detailing such efforts no later than five court days before the continued hearing date.
2. MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED to August 4, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.
On 6/23/25, the Court continued the hearing because moving counsel had not filed a proof of service of the motion, and the