Chang vs. HIOSSEN, Inc., a California corporation

TENTATIVE RULINGS 7/30/2026 02:00 PM

100 Valle vs. EXPRESS FURNITURE SERVICES LLC

2020-01175109

Final Accounting

The settlement administrator, ILYM Group, Inc., has confirmed that the distribution of the settlement funds has been completed and made in accordance with the terms of the settlement that were approved by the Court.

As Plaintiff has shown that the administrator’s work is complete, the Court’s file may now be closed.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling to Defendant. 101 Chang vs. HIOSSEN, Inc., a California corporation

2025-01535790 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Defendant Hiossen Inc.’s application for pro hac vice admission of attorney Michael J. Slocum is GRANTED.

On or before the anniversary of the date of this order, if this attorney remains counsel for the moving party, the moving party must pay an annual renewal fee of five hundred dollars ($500) for each year that the attorney maintains pro hac vice status in this case. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (e)(2).)

Moving party shall provide notice. 102 Balt USA, LLC vs. Treadstone Medical LLC

2021-01237081 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Plaintiff Balt USA, LLC’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.

As a preliminary matter, the instant motion fails to comply with the relevant procedural rules for filing a motion. Rules of Court (CRC), rule 3.1112 specifies that “the papers filed in support of a motion must consist of at least the following: [¶] (1) A notice of hearing on the motion; (2) [t]he motion itself; and (3) [a] memorandum in support of the motion. . . .” (See also Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1126 [all three elements must be present for a valid motion].) Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 1010 requires a “notice of motion” that “must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based.” CRC, rule 3.1110(a) also requires a “notice of motion” that “must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.”

Here, Plaintiff has not filed a notice of motion and motion as required by CRC, rule 3.1112, much less a notice of motion that satisfies the requirements of CCP section 1010 and CRC, rule 3.1110. Plaintiff filed only a memorandum of points and authorities. (ROA #1975.)