Motion to Bifurcate
The Order will become effective upon filing of a proof of service reflecting service of the resulting Order on the client.
Moving counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
2. State Farm GeneraL Insurance Company v. Gyroor LLC 213-1322521 The motion by Tianyu Ju and Glacier Law Group to be relieved as counsel for defendant Shenzhen Lanxun Trade Co., Ltd. is DENIED, for the reasons set forth herein.
Code of Civil Procedure §1013a requires the proof of service to be supported by an affidavit. Code of Civil Procedure §2013a sets forth the requirements for an affidavit, including a requirement that the signer certify that the statements are made “under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.” Here, the proof of service was executed by Li Yang in New York and does not comply with the foregoing Code sections.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Attorney Tianyu Ju is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
3. Raintree Del Prado LLC v. Sheikan 24-1394670 Before the court is an unopposed motion filed by attorneys at Downtown LA Law Group (“Attorneys”), requesting to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant/cross-complainant Tatijana N. Sheikhan (“Client”). The motion is GRANTED.
Attorneys have complied with the requirements of California Rule of Court 3.1362, and filed and served forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC- 053 on Client and on the other parties in this action. The court finds Attorneys have provided a valid and sufficient reason for requesting to be relieved as counsel for Client. The motion is GRANTED.
The court notes the order relieving counsel shall not be effective until Attorneys file proof of service of the ruling on Client. Until such time, Attorneys shall remain counsel of record.
Attorneys are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
4. Zeng v. Reitzfeld 24-1383451 Before the Court at present is the Motion to Bifurcate filed by Defendant Donald K. Reitzfeld (“Reitzfeld”) and opposed by plaintiffs John Fei Zeng and Jia Chun Yuan (“Plaintiffs”). The motion is DENIED, without prejudice.
Code of Civil Procedure section 598 provides that the court may order certain issues tried before others “when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby[.]” (
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?”
Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(b) provides: “The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by
jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(b).)
The Court has considered the arguments and evidence submitted by both parties and determines, at this time, bifurcation as requested by Reitzfeld is not warranted.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED, without prejudice.
Counsel for Plaintiffs shall give notice of this ruling.
5. LVNV Funding LLC v. Gomez 21-1219223 The motion to enforce settlement filed by plaintiff LVNV Funding LLC (Plaintiff) is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 1, 2026, AT 1:30 P.M. IN DEPARTMENT C20.
There is no proof of service filed showing defendant Jasmine Gomez (Defendant) was served with this motion.
The motion is therefore CONTINUED as stated above.
Plaintiff is ordered to file a proof of service showing Defendant was properly and timely served with the motion. Said proof of service shall be filed at least 10 court days prior to the hearing.
Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice.
6. Tykonina v. In-N-Out Burgers, Inc. 25-1470899 Before the Court is a motion by In-N-Out Burgers, Inc. (Defendant) for an order quashing Plaintiff’s PMK deposition notices for Mark Courtney and John Mark Jennings. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is DENIED.
Attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jessica Marsella is a “Notice of Videotaped Deposition Of Person(S) Most Qualified At In-N-Out Burgers, Inc., And Request For Production Of Documents At Deposition.” This deposition notice was served on 3/4/26. Neither Mark Courtney nor John Mark Jennings are mentioned in the deposition notice.
The Court notes that it may be that Defendant intended to file a different motion or submit different exhibits because in parts of the motion there is reference to deposition notices for Courtney and Jennings being served on 4/21/26. (See page 4, lines 22-26) However, those deposition notices are not part of the court’s file.
Accordingly, the Defendant’s request “for an order quashing Plaintiff’s PMK deposition notices for Mark Courtney and John Mark Jennings” is DENIED.
Defendant also requests a protective order be entered “because the categories [in the deposition notices] are not tailored to either witness.” (Motion at 10:1) However, because the deposition notices are not part of the record, the request for a protective order is DENIED.