Snell vs. Costco Wholesale Corporation

54 Snell vs. Costco Wholesale Corporation

23-01354070 Motion to Compel

Plaintiff Mark Snell’s motion to compel Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) to pay all fees and costs of the discovery referee appoint in the instant action is CONTINUED to August 21, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Department C16.

The declaration Plaintiff submitted is insufficient to show inability to pay the referee’s fees. Without detailed information as to Plaintiff’s income, assets, and liabilities the Court cannot adjudicate the issue. The Court also needs information on the expected referee fees.

Should Plaintiff desire, Plaintiff may file a supplemental declaration with additional financial information or financial statements no later than 16 court days prior to the continued hearing date. Costco may file a response to the supplemental declaration, if any, no later than 9 court days prior to the continued hearing date.

Plaintiff to give notice.

55 La Paz Village Investors, LLC vs. Orange County Realtors, Inc.

26-01538551 Motion to Strike - Anti SLAPP

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant La Paz Village Investors, LLC (“LPVI”) moves to strike certain portions of the First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FAXC”) filed by Defendant and Cross-Complainant Orange County Realtors, Inc. (“OCR”). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

A. Procedural Issues:

OCR’s opposition is 37 pages and exceeds the applicable page limit. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d) – No opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages.) The Court exercises its discretion to consider the opposition.

B. Evidentiary Objections:

Many of the objections are directed to entire paragraphs or exhibits rather than specific objectionable statements. “It is settled law that where evidence is in part admissible, and in part inadmissible, the objectionable portion cannot be reached by a general objection to the entire [evidence], but the inadmissible portion must be specified.” (People v. Harris (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 954, 957; see also Walls v. Macy’s (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 29, 30.) To the extent any challenged paragraph contains both admissible and allegedly inadmissible matter, LPVI’s generalized objections fail for lack of specificity.

Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Anthony Bucciero (ROA 259) Pars. 2-3 are OVERRULED.