Motion to Consolidate
attorney-client communications, including engagement letters and billing records for legal services. (2) Moving Party has shown an overriding interest that supports sealing of records (see NBC Subsidiary (KNBC- TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222, fn. 46 [recognizing inter alia an overriding interest in protection of trade secrets and protection of information within the attorney-client privilege]; Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1286 [recognizing that confidential and sensitive business and financial information is ordinarily a matter appropriate for sealing].) (3) Publication of these records would prejudice Moving Party by publicly disclosing attorney-client communications, attorney work-product, and sensitive financial information. (4) Moving Party proposed a narrowly tailored means to protect the overriding interest by redacting only those portions of the memorandum that constitute attorney-client communications and attorney work product and references the substance of the same. (5) Moving Party has shown there is no less restrictive means of protecting the overriding interests identified above.
The clerk is directed to file the unredacted Reply in Support of the Motion to Disqualify Attorney of Record (ROA 158) UNDER SEAL. The redacted versions of the Reply (ROA 148) shall be accessible on the public record of this proceeding.
Plaintiff to give notice.
6 Kiani vs. Masimo Corporation
2026-01546059 Petition to Compel Arbitration
No tentative. 7 Kim vs. Byun
2026-01579317 Motion to Consolidate
Plaintiffs Myung Soo Kim and Sun Hee Kim’s motion to consolidate this action with the Small Claims action Case No. 30- 2025-01517200 is DENIED. Consolidation is not appropriate as the Small Claims action has already been to trial and is now pending appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.390, subd. (b).) The case of Acuna v. Gunderson Chevrolet, Inc., (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 1467
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?”
The Acuna court grounded its holding in the legislative purpose of the Small Claims Act. Code of Civil Procedure section 116.120, subdivision (b) declares that the purpose of the small claims divisions is to resolve minor civil disputes expeditiously, inexpensively, and fairly. Consolidating a small claims appeal with a full superior court civil action would fundamentally undermine this purpose by subjecting a small claims matter to the procedural complexity of unlimited civil litigation.
Plaintiff Myung Soo Kim to give notice.
8 Magedman vs. STOCKX LLC
2025-01531861 Motion to Compel Arbitration
Defendant StockX, LLC’s motion to compel plaintiff Bryan Magedman to submit his claims to binding, contractual arbitration is GRANTED. StockX has met its initial burden showing a valid arbitration agreement between the parties that covers the instant dispute. The burden now shifts to Magedman to show why the agreement should not be enforced. Magedman has not met that burden.
The court finds plaintiff is not seeking public injunctive relief in this case which may prohibit enforcement of the arbitration provision. The gravamen of the complaint points to simply a private request. Public injunctive relief is relief that benefits the general public and benefits an individual plaintiff only incidentally or as a member of the general public. Gostev v. Skillz Platform, Inc. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1035. In contrast, private injunctive relief primarily resolves a private dispute between the parties and rectifies individual wrongs even where a group of similarly situated persons would benefit. (Clifford v. Quest Software Inc., (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 745.)
This action is stayed pending completion of the binding arbitration. The court sets an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) review hearing for May 21, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in this department.
Magedman’s objections to the declaration of Stephen Winn are overruled.
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice is vacated. See notice filed 7/23/26 (ROA 159).
Case Management Conference set this date is vacated.
StockX to give notice.