Motion to Compel Arbitration
Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling.
3. 25CV06391, Ortiz v. Blackhorse Security Inc., a California corporation
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. OSCAR A. PARDO)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
19. PLEASE USE DEPT. 19’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
Defendant Blackhorse Security Inc. moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Vilma Ortiz to submit her claims, including her individual PAGA claims, to binding arbitration; dismissing Plaintiff’s putative class claims; and staying all remaining judicial proceedings pending completion of arbitration. On July 16, 2026, Plaintiff Vilma Ortiz (“Plaintiff”) filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. Plaintiff states that after reviewing Defendant’s moving papers and participating in meetand-confer discussions with Defendant’s counsel, Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss Plaintiff’s class claims pursuant to the arbitration agreement and the parties are in the process of resolving Plaintiff’s individual claims through settlement.
Plaintiff states the parties have reached a tentative agreement on the material terms of settlement and Plaintiff anticipates the parties will execute a formal settlement agreement shortly. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the hearing on the Motion to Compel Arbitration be vacated to allow the parties additional time to finalize the settlement and file a dismissal of this action. As the parties are in the process of settling this matter, the hearing on Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is taken off calendar.
This matter remains calendar for a Case Management Conference on 09/08/26 at 3:00pm in Dept.
16. The Court will follow up with the Parties on the status of the settlement at that time.
4. MCV-258216, Espinoza Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Ludloff
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. JANE GASKELL)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
17. PLEASE USE DEPT. 17’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
Plaintiff Espinoza Bail Bonds, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves to amend the judgment entered in this action.
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. Judgment On January 5, 2023, a default judgment was entered in Plaintiff’s favor against Defendant Heather Ludloff aka Heather Ann Ludloff in the amount of $10,551.46.
2. Jose Espinoza dba Espinoza Bail Bonds The Plaintiff in this action was Espinoza Bail Bonds, Inc. Plaintiff’s counsel states that subsequent to entry of the default judgment, he learned that Plaintiff is not a corporation. Rather, Jose Espinoza does business as Espinoza Bail Bonds. Plaintiff argues the use of the “Inc.” in the name was a clerical error which can be corrected. a. CCP section 473 5