Boyd vs. Fernandez

million bonus and a $500,000 severance payment and not a fundamental public policy].)

The court therefore finds none of the arbitration agreements are substantively unconscionable, and therefore Plaintiffs cannot establish unconscionability.

The case is STAYED pending arbitration.

Arbitration Status Review set for 5/20/2027 at 1:30 PM. The parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report 5 days prior.

Clerk to give notice.

6 Boyd vs. Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint Fernandez Off calendar at request of moving party. 30-2025- 01523882-CU- PA-CJC 7 Byer vs. City of Motion for Relief from Untimely Memorandum of La Palma Costs 30-2024- Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Untimely Memorandum of 01394359-CU- Costs is GRANTED. OE-CJC Notice of entry of judgment was served via email on 12/22/2025, but Plaintiff’s counsel did not file the memorandum of costs until 2/17/2026 (57 days later) due to a calendaring error.

The court rejects defendant’s contention the court is limited to the 30-day extension in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(3). Plaintiff seeks relief on grounds of inadvertence or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); see Pollard v. Saxe & Yolles Dev. Co. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 374, 381 [“In the absence of prejudice, the trial court has broad discretion in allowing relief on grounds of inadvertence from a failure to timely file a cost bill.”]; see also Hoover Community Hotel Development Corp. v. Thomson (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 485, 488 [limitation of time to file costs bill is not jurisdictional].)

Plaintiff has demonstrated the calendaring error was the result of counsel’s excusable neglect involving a new legal assistant who mistakenly calendared the memorandum of costs due at the same time as the motion for attorney fees.

Defendant has not demonstrated substantial prejudice. Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to strike or tax costs within 15 days.