Motion to Appoint Receiver and Issuance of Preliminary Injunction
Moving attorney is ORDERED to give notice to client, and file proof of service of the Court’s order as entered.
Withdrawal will be effective upon filing of proof of service of the order.
Clerk to give notice.
2 Reyes vs. Motion to Set Aside Dismissal General Motors, LLC Plaintiffs Sandra Reyes’s and Juan Reyes’s motion to set 30-2024- aside the dismissal entered on 9/22/2025 and reinstate 01389233-CU- case is DENIED. BC-CJC Plaintiffs have not demonstrated counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)
Counsel was well aware of the trial date and any “overbooking” was not the result of a mistake but appears to have been scheduled intentionally by counsel. (Baggs Decl., ¶¶ 3, 8.) Plaintiffs have not demonstrated why counsel did not inform the Stanley Mosk Court they were already engaged in a trial in Orange County, nor addressed why both Plaintiffs failed to appear for trial as ordered.
Clerk to give notice.
3 O’Connell vs. Motion to Continue Discovery Channels 30-2024- The Motion to Continue Discovery by Plaintiffs Kevin 01428559-CU- O’Connell, Credit 1 Assist LLC, and Guru Finance Group, FR-CJC LLC is GRANTED.
The Court has considered Defendants’ opposition, which was untimely filed and served as a result of the parties’ attempts to stay litigation while attempting dispute resolution.
Plaintiffs have shown a short extension of the discovery cutoff to 8/10/2026 is appropriate in order to complete discovery which was not completed by prior counsel, and Defendants have not demonstrated prejudice because trial has been continued to 10/23/2026. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050.)
Clerk to give notice.
4 Morris vs. Motion to Appoint Receiver and Issuance of Newman Preliminary Injunction
30-2025- Plaintiff Paula Sue Morris’s Motion to Appoint Receiver and 01508723-CU- Issuance of Preliminary Injunction is CONTINUED to OR-CJC 8/14/2026 at 10:00 AM.
The court currently intends to appoint a receiver if the parties cannot reach an agreement to market the property for sale.
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?”
No later than five court days before the continued hearing date, each side may submit a supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages, regarding the status of the property and whether a receivership remains necessary.
On 4/17/2026, plaintiff’s counsel, Stephen J. Thomas, filed a declaration and certification regarding use of generative artificial intelligence declaring he utilized a generative artificial intelligence research tool provided by LexisNexis and he reviewed and certified each citation had been independently verified for accuracy. (ROA 56.)
As part of defendants’ amended opposition, defendants argue plaintiff’s cited authorities do not contain the propositions attached to them, including Baron v. Fire Ins. Exchange (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1184; O’Flaherty v. Belgum (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1044; Gold v. Gold (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 791; Canada Life Assur. Co. v. LaPeter (9th Cir. 2009) 563 F.3d 837; People v Riverside University (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 572; and County of Sonoma v. Quail (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 657. (ROA 77, pp. 12-13.)
Plaintiff’s reply is silent on the issue.
“To state the obvious, it is a fundamental duty of attorneys to read the legal authorities they cite in appellate briefs or any other court filings to determine that the authorities stand for the propositions for which they are cited.” (Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 426, 445.)
It appears counsel has violated Department C31’s standing order re: Artificial Intelligence, Business & Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (d), State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, rules 3.3(a)(1) and (2), and California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a).
On the court’s own motion, the court sets an OSC re sanctions against attorney Stephen J. Thomas for use of fabricated quotations and/or erroneous statements of law,
for 8/20/2026 at 1:30 PM. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.30; Code Civ. Proc., § 177.5.) The court ORDERS attorney Stephen J. Thomas to personally appear at the OSC. A Zoom appearance will not be permitted.
Clerk to give notice.
5 Security National Motion to Quash Subpoena, or in the Alternative, for Guaranty, Inc. a Protective Order vs. Makhijani Defendant Nano Banc’s Motion to Quash or alternatively 30-2023- 01347034-CU- for Protective Order is DENIED. BC-CJC On 3/11/26, plaintiff Security National Security, Inc. and nominal defendant SNG Evariste, LLC now known as New Dawn Equity Partners LLC (“Judgment Creditor”) served a subpoena on defendant Nano Banc requesting nine categories of documents. Taken together, they seek all documents and communications, in whatever form, related to any account controlled or associated with defendant Mahender Makhijani, the opening or closing of any account controlled or associated with Makhijani, monies paid to or by Makhijani, the transfer of monies by Makhijani, stock certificates or shares issued to Makhijani, real estate or real property holdings and investments for Makhijani, and cashier’s checks obtained by Makhijani.
Nano Banc moves to quash the subpoena or, alternatively, for a protective order limiting the scope of the document requests to accounts and assets in Makhijani’s name only, on the grounds that the document requests are (1) overbroad and lack particularity, and (2) violate third party privacy rights.
Nano Banc argues the document requests must be narrowly tailored to accounts and assets in Makhijani’s name only or assets or debts owed to Makhijani. Nano Banc is incorrect. “[W]hen a subpoena duces tecum is tethered to [a judgment debtor] examination under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 708.110, the scope of discoverable documents must be broadly construed to include matters relating to the property and business affairs of the judgment debtor.” (Shrewsbury Mgmt., Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Boucher) (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1213, 1228 [cleaned up].)
Here, the subpoena is “tethered” to Makhijani’s judgment debtor examination under section 708.110, which is set for 8/28/2026. Accordingly, the subpoena’s scope must