| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion to Consolidate
Defendants’ motion to dismiss to be “without prejudice.” As to Plaintiffs’ secondary alternative argument that the Court should reconsider and vacate the dismissal, Plaintiffs present no new or different facts, circumstances, or law and essentially argue that the Court misinterpreted Brookview Condominium Owners’ Assn. v. Heltzer Enterprises-Brookview (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 502. Plaintiffs do not present a basis for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 to vacate the dismissal. Plaintiffs to give notice
108 Kohlman vs. Adaptive Behavior Center, Inc
24-01449191 Motion to Consolidate Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, Plaintiff Irene Kohlman’s Motion to Consolidate the following two cases is GRANTED: 1. IRENE KOHLMAN v. ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR CENTER, Inc., DELIGHT HOUSE, Inc., and DOES 1- 20, inclusive, filed on December 23, 2024, in Superior Court of California, County of Orange, located at 700 Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92701, under Court Case Number 30-2024-01449191-CU-PO-CJC and 2.
IRENE KOHLMAN, as Successor-in-Interest and Personal Representative of the Estate of DONALD KOHLMAN v. DELIGHT HOUSE, Inc., filed on November 5, 2025, in Superior Court of California, County of Orange, located at 700 Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92701, under Court Case Number 30- 2025-01524511-CU-PO-CJC. The court finds that all procedural requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 are met. Moreover, the court finds that the actions involve common questions of law and fact such that the
interests of the parties and the court would be best served by consolidating the cases. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048.) Moving party to give notice
109 Incentax, LLC vs. Narrative Wave, Inc.
24-01426638
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?”
1. Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication 2. Case Management Conference Plaintiffs Incentax LLC (“Incentax”) and Incentax Analytics, LLC (“Analytics”) (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs” or “Cross-Defendants”), move (the “Motion”), pursuant to CCP § 437c, for an order granting summary judgment, or in the alternative an order granting summary adjudication, against Defendant Narrative Wave, Inc. (“Narrative”, “Defendant” or “Cross-Complainant”). This Motion will be made upon the grounds that there are no triable issues of fact and that Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiffs’ complaint against Defendant (“Complaint”), and as to Cross-Complainant’s cross-complaint (“Cross-Complaint”) against Cross-Defendants.
In the alternative, Plaintiffs move for summary adjudication pursuant to CCP § 437c(f) as to the several issues with respect to the Complaint. Initially, it should be noted that there are two different Plaintiffs (i.e., INCENTAX, LLC and INCENTAX ANALYTICS, LLC), and there are two separate breach of contract causes of action (that is, two different contracts). Plaintiffs also seek MSJ/SAI not only as to their Complaint, but also on NarrativeWave, Inc.’s Cross-Complaint. AS TO THE COMPLAINT: Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks summary judgment, the burden is to produce admissible evidence on each element of a “cause of action” entitling plaintiff to