Salazar v. Moreno Consulting Group Inc.

Capri argues its decision does not cause a Nollan/Dolan-cognizable harm and the “essential nexus” requirement is not met such that the $239,050 lacks rough proportionality.

The City also argues Capri’s claim is time-barred. It argues Plaintiff was required to challenge the deposit and ultimate Impact Report fee in a reverse validation action by December 3, 2024, and its failure to do so bars this action.

However, Capri challenges the $239,050 processing cost, not the ordinance allowing the City to charge a reasonable fee. The ordinance’s resolution merely announced the City’s intent to recover costs and pointed to general, citywide internal hourly rates, delegating to staff the critical acts that gave rise to the burdens Capri challenges, such as which non-City-provided costs would be charged at all and which third-party consultants would be hired to provide them and on what terms or cost. In short, the resolution did not enact the fee; it simply purported to authorize the City to charge an unknown fee in the future, allegedly contrary to Government Code section 66016(a) and (b).

The City argues that the challenged fees are not unlawful taxes and do not violate Capri’s first amendment right to petition and thus fail to allege sufficient facts under this theory. Regardless of the ultimate legality of these issues, the Plaintiff need only allege a cause of action under any theory.

The City argues Plaintiff also fails to allege sufficient facts to establish that the challenged fee is unreasonable under section 65863.7(g). To be “reasonable,” the City’s fees cannot “exceed[] the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied.” (Gov. Code, § 66016, subd. (a).) The determination of reasonableness is a factual dispute not appropriate for demurrer.

3. Conclusion and Order

The City fails to establish that Plaintiff’s complaint fails on each and every theory such that there are no facts alleged to support Capri’s single cause of action for declaratory relief. Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

10. SCV-270338, Salazar v. Moreno Consulting Group Inc.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, et seq., Plaintiff Olegario Santino Salazar (“Plaintiff”) moves for terminating sanctions against Defendant Moreno Consulting Group, Inc. (“MCG” or “Defendant”). “The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. ‘Discovery sanctions “‘should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.”’ [Citation.]

If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse. ‘A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” (Doppes v.

Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

Due to MGC’s refusal to provide responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, on December 11, 2025, this Court ordered Defendant MCG to provide responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Demands for Production of Documents, Set Two, and deemed Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set Two, against Defendant 21 MCG admitted. (Chou-Chan decl., ¶5.)

Plaintiff’s counsel electronically served notice of the Court Order on January 5, 2026, and MCG’s discovery responses and production of documents were due within twenty (20) days of service of the notice. (Id., at ¶6.) Defendant’s Court-ordered deadline to comply was January 27, 2026, and on February 10, 2026, Defendant MCG responded to Plaintiff’s counsel’s email that it could not comply with the Court Order. (Id., ¶7.)

On May 23, 2023, Defendant’s counsel withdrew as MCG could no longer afford to pay for legal counsel. (Id., Ex. 1.) Michelle Moreno and Jose Moreno have been the contact for MCG after its counsel withdrew representation. (Id., ¶8.) Michelle Moreno has informed Plaintiff’s counsel that MCG cannot afford an attorney and therefore cannot participate in this lawsuit. (Id., Ex. 1.)

Notice of this motion having been provided to MCG, Michelle Moreno, and Jose Moreno, and MCG’s inability or unwillingness to participate in this lawsuit including in complying with its obligations to provide discovery having been shown, the motion is GRANTED. Terminating sanctions are hereby imposed against Defendant Moreno Consulting Group, Inc. Defendant MCG’s answer will be stricken and default entered against Defendant MCG. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling.

11. SCV-273938, Din v. Thuesen

This matter is on calendar for the motion of Kenneth E. Bacon, Mastagni Holstedt, A.P.C., to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Adnan Din (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff has filed a limited opposition requesting that this court condition any order granting withdrawal on reasonable transition protections to avoid significant and foreseeable prejudice. Plaintiff does not oppose the actual withdrawal of Mr. Bacon; rather, he merely seeks to avoid prejudice from it. In response to Plaintiff’s limited opposition, Mr. Bacon states that he has prepared a memorandum to Plaintiff addressing the issues Plaintiff presents in his limited opposition.

The jury trial in this matter is set for October 9, 2026. Defendants Victor Thuesen and the Law Offices of Victor C. Thuesen have filed a Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication. The hearing was set for November 18, 2026. Thus, it appears likely that Defendants will request that the Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication be advanced or the trial be continued. Advancing the motion would create difficulties for Plaintiff who would be left without counsel.

In addition, Mr. Bacon has asserted an attorney lien against Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not ask this court to adjudicate the lien in connection with this motion. Plaintiff requests that any order relieving counsel expressly preserve Plaintiff’s right to contest the validity, enforceability, amount, scope, and priority of any asserted attorney lien or quantum meruit claim. Mr. Bacon is not opposed to this request.

Based upon the foregoing, the motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED. This court hereby vacates the trial set for October 9, 2026, and sets a Case Management Conference for trial setting on August 11, 2026, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 16. The court will sign the proposed order. 22