APEX Events, LLC vs. Advocate Inc.
Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
avoid such, please log in and test your equipment in advance of the hearing. Also, if technological or audibility issues arise during the proceeding, please call (657) 622-5908.
All remote video participants shall comply with the court’s “Guidelines for Remote appearances”, found at https://www.occourts.org/system/files/guidelinesforremoteproceedings.pdf.
IN-PERSON: Parties preferring to appear in-person for a law and motion hearing may do so, consistent with Section 367.75 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Orange County Local Rule 375.
PUBLIC ACCESS: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings.
No filming, broadcasting, photography, or electronic recording is permitted of the video session pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 1.150 and Orange County Superior Court rule 180.
July 24, 2026
# Case Name 3 APEX Events, LLC Motion for Extension of Time to Answer vs. Advocate Inc. OFF-CALENDAR as MOOT. Defendants ADVOCATE INC. d.b.a. NAVA BENEFITS and ED LIGONDE filed a motion on 5/6/26, requesting an extension of time to file an answer. Defendants thereafter filed their answer on 6/17/26. As such, the motion is MOOT.
4 Djavid vs. Vidal Motion for Leave (re First Amended Complaint)
The court GRANTS Plaintiff NONA DJAVID’s unopposed motion for leave to file a proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
The Proposed FAC adds general negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims, reflects the dismissal of Defendants ELITE GROUP PROPERTY INSPECTION SERVICE, INC and BRIAN HALL, and adds specified damages amounts.
2
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”