Herrera v. Espinosa

arbitrator; grant limited provisional remedies; and confirm, correct, or vacate an arbitration award. (SWAB Financial, LLC v. E*Trade Securities, LLC (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1200.) Absent an agreement to withdraw the controversy from arbitration, no judicial act is authorized. (Ibid.) It is currently the job of the arbitrator, not the court, to resolve all questions needed to determine the controversy, including procedural issues. (Ibid.) Defendant requests sanctions pursuant to CCP section 128.7 arguing this motion is frivolous.

The motion was filed before Defendant initiated arbitration, at a time when Plaintiff indicated he could not afford the arbitration fee, suggesting Plaintiff believed this action could proceed in this court. Therefore, the court will deny Defendant’s request for sanctions. The motion is DENIED for the reasons stated. This court’s minute order shall constitute the order of the court.

2. 24CV06966, Herrera v. Espinosa

(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).

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Roger O. Herrera and Faye Chang Herrera, as Trustees of the Chang Herrera Family Revocable Trust (“XDs”), demur to the cross-complaint (“XC”) filed by Defendants/Cross-Complainants George J. Espinosa, Martha E. Fritz, and Cross-Complainants Mary Ann Espinosa and Alex Espinosa (“XCs”) on the grounds that the XC is uncertain and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. On July 23, 2026, XCs filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint. Accordingly, the demurrer to the initial cross-complaint is DENIED as MOOT.

3. 24CV07722, Dunkelis v. B&D Insulation

(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).

I. Introduction - Motion to Compel Responses – Defendant Cox (Motion #1) Plaintiff Diana Dunkelis (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant David Bryan Cox (“Defendant Cox”) to serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $246.57. II. Service and Failure to Respond If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, the propounding party's remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers to the interrogatories. (CCP section 2030.290.)