| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
Motion for Termination of Sanctions
in criminal court) also prolonged the case. Thus, Plaintiff contends he should not be responsible for avoidable costs. But again, pursuant to the authority provided and discussed above, Plaintiff fails to meet his burden.
Nevertheless, the Court exercises its discretion and strikes the “other” costs of $22.50, as indicated above.
Judicial Errors, Threats, and Clerk Mistakes Created Unnecessary Work; Plaintiff’s Request for ADA Accommodations Were Ignored or Denied; Costs Should Be Denied to Avoid Chilling Constitutional Rights
None of these grounds are grounds upon which a Court can exercise its discretion to deny costs to Defendant SOCCCD. The prevailing party is entitled to all of its costs unless another statute provides otherwise. (See Crib Retaining Walls, Inc. v. NBS/Lowry, Inc., supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 890.) Absent such statutory authority, the court has no discretion to deny costs to the prevailing party. (Ibid.)
Accordingly, the request to strike all costs on this ground is DENIED. But again, the Court strikes the “other” costs of $22.50.
Total costs allowed: $1,552.52 ($1,575.02 – $22.50)
Defendant to give notice.
60 Finnell vs. WC- Fullerton Ops, LLC
21-01233043 Motion for Termination of Sanctions
NO TENTATIVE RULING – Parties to appear on Zoom or in-person at 10:00 AM.
61 Holler vs. The Horizons Community Association
21-01222398 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication
CONTINUED TO JUNE 4 TH, 2026 AT 10:00 AM
62 DFB Portal, LLC vs. Marco Fine Arts
23-01315041 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication
The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication to 7/24/2026 at 10:00 AM, to allow briefing which addresses the appropriate procedure to resolve Defendants’ setoff defense and, specifically, whether consolidation of this action with Marco Fine Arts, Inc. v. 240 Tech LLC (2023-01317799) would more efficiently resolve the same; however, the Court requests counsel for both sides appear at the hearing, prepared to discuss these issues.
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
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?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.