Motion for Leave (re First Amended Complaint)
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.
In light of the ruling, the court also VACATES the defaults entered against Defendants COLIBRI FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC and JUAN JOSE GONZALEZ aka JAY GONZALEZ (ROAs 46 and 47).
Plaintiff SHALL separately file and serve the Proposed FAC (attached as Exhibit 3 to the Khiterer Declaration) within five court days.
Plaintiff to give notice.
5 Elias vs. Elias Motion to Set Aside Default
The court DENIES Defendant JAMES VOLPE’s Motion to Set Aside Default.
Defendant Volpe moves to set aside the default entered on 3/30/23 (ROA 11) pursuant the court’s inherent powers under Section 128 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
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?”
Defendant Volpe fails to articulate how it would be appropriate or proper for this court to grant relief under its inherent powers from a default that was entered more than three years ago.
Notably, this court denied Defendant Volpe’s prior attempt to set aside the default, finding that Defendant lacked diligence in moving to set aside default, among other things. (ROA 232.) Attempts to piggyback on meritorious arguments made by another defendant for whom Plaintiff voluntarily chose not to pursue further is not sufficient ground for the relief requested. The court notes, however, that default judgment may be inappropriate against a defaulting defendant where several defendants are sued on a joint liability basis and one of them answers asserting defenses which would exonerate the defaulting defendant from such liability. (See, e.g., Adams Mfg. & Engineering Co. v.
Coast Centerless Grinding Co. (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 649, 655 [“The rule is definitely established that where there are two or more defendants and the liability of one is dependent upon that of the other the default of one of them does not preclude his having the benefit of his
3