ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUCTION
motion did not state whether personal service was effected on Plaintiff, who is apparently unable to communicate, or Plaintiff’s husband, who was the main point of contact. Moreover, Defendant has opposed the motion on grounds including undue delay and prejudice to Defendant.
On 6/29/26, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a proof of service of the motion on Ms. Gunn via overnight delivery on 5/14/26, as well as proof of service of the notice of continuance.
Plaintiff’s counsel filed an untimely reply brief on 7/7/26, asserting that withdrawal is necessary because of their inability to communicate with the client or her husband.
The motion is continued to allow Plaintiff’s counsel to determine whether a third-party guardian ad litem can be retained for the remainder of the litigation which could avoid the necessity for withdrawal.
3. MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS
Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Witnesses is DENIED as moot as to the exclusion of experts and GRANTED as to monetary sanctions.
Defendant seeks to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witnesses from testifying at trial because Plaintiff has failed to cooperate with the experts’ depositions.
As set out in the Court’s 6/23/26 order and the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel had repeatedly failed to cooperate in Defendant’s request to depose her expert witnesses.
However, based on Defendant’s 7/1/26 supplemental declaration and Plaintiff’s 7/7/26 supplemental brief, the parties have made arrangements to complete the expert witness depositions sufficiently in advance of trial – July 15 and 17. Therefore, the motion is moot as to exclusion of expert witnesses.
Defendant’s counsel declares they incurred $3,200 in attorney fees plus $60 in filing costs related to Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to cooperate in expert discovery. (7/1/26 Jackson Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby ordered to pay $3,260 in monetary sanctions to Defendant no later than 7/31/26.
12. ECKHOFF VS. FAMILIES ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY FORWARD INJUCTION
Petitioner Stephanie Eckhoff’s motion for a Preliminary Injunction restraining and enjoining Respondent Families Forward from taking any action to further terminate her program status or her continued
possession of the premises located at 17 Cascade, Irvine, CA 92605 is CONTINUED 8/4/26 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept C32.
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?”
On 6/2/26, Petitioner filed a verified Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus against Respondent Families Forward, challenging Families Forward’s termination of Petitioner’s enrollment in the Rapid Rehousing Plus Program. (Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (Petition), ¶ 12, 28.)
On 6/16/26, the court granted Petitioner’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order and set an order to show cause re preliminary injunction for 6/30/26. (ROA 31.)
On 6/30/26, the Court continued the hearing to 7/14/26 due to Petitioner’s failure to file the exhibits referenced in the Petition and Petitioner’s declaration. (ROA 1.)
On 7/2/26, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (Amended Petition) adding County of Orange as a Respondent and Woodbridge Meadows Apartments LLC as a Real Party In Interest as well as a supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities. (ROA 60, 54.).
On 7/2/26, Petitioner also filed an Exhibit List of exhibits in support of the Amended Petition (ROA 52) and the exhibits themselves. (ROA 56.) Petitioner filed another Exhibit List in Support of the Amended Petition on 7/6/26, which was similar to, but not identical, to the Exhibit List filed on 7/2/26. (ROA 64.)
Petitioner has not filed a proof of service for the Amended Petition and supporting documents on Respondent or newly added parties County of Orange and Woodbridge Meadows Apartments LLC. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to file a proof of service of the Amended Petition and supporting documents as well as Petitioner’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order and the Court’s 6/16/26 Order granting the Temporary Restraining Order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue on all parties.
The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 6/16/26 to remain in effect until the continued hearing.
Petitioner to give notice.