request for clarification
Case: Accardi v. Accardi Case No. CV2025-0939 Hearing Date: July 28, 2026 Department Thirteen 9:00 a.m.
Defendant Giovanna Accardi’s request for clarification is DENIED. First, defendant asks the Court to modify its June 24, 2026, order, but fails to cite legal authority to support this request. Second, on November 6, 2025, and January 15, 2026, the Court ordered that $55,000.00 be paid to plaintiffs Filippa Ferrando and Vito Accardi’s counsel, Underwood Law Firm, for its attorney’s fees lien from the escrow proceeds. (Interlocutory judgment [dated November 6, 2025], ¶¶ 4, 7c; Order [dated January 15, 2026], ¶¶ 4, 5e; Robinson decl. [filed March 30, 2026], ¶ 14.) The Court declines to modify these orders.
The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counsel for moving party, or the moving party if unrepresented by counsel, is ordered to notify the opposing party or parties immediately of the tentative ruling system.
If no hearing is requested, and no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
2 of 7
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?”