Request to Dismiss for Failure to Obtain Permission as Vexatious Litigant
The court "shall impose" sanctions of $2,500 against the Defendant's attorney to be paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the document production requirements unless good cause is shown. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26 (j)(1).)
III. CONCLUSION
Defendant did not file an opposition showing good cause. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to comply with the requirement to serve initial disclosures within 15 days. Defendant's counsel, Sweeney APC, is ordered to pay sanctions of $2,500 to Plaintiff within 15 days.
Costantino v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al. Friday, August 14, 2026 [TENTATIVE] ORDER TAKING OFF CALENDAR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Sec. 871.26 (3121)
There is no evidence that Plaintiff served the motion on Defendant. Therefore, the motion is taken off calendar.
Case Number: 25STCV31442 Hearing Date: August 14, 2026 Dept: 414 25STCV31442 Nicole Y. Jackson v. Zeledon, et al. Friday, August 14, 2026 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN PERMISSION AS PLAINTIFF IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (5404)
I. BACKGROUND
The first amended complaint filed January 8, 2026 alleges claims against Defendants, former landlords, alleging habitability and nuisance claims arising from her tenancy. On March 2, 2026, Defendants filed this motion to dismiss the action for Plaintiff's failure to obtain permission as a vexatious litigant prior to filing this litigation. Plaintiff was served with the motion by did not file an opposition.
II. DISCUSSION
"Nicole Y. Jackson" was deemed a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order in 19STCL02275 Nicole Jackson v. Los Angeles MTA on December 2, 2021 and in BS170641 Nicole Y. Jackson v. Aspire Public Schools on December 17, 2021. Both cases show Plaintiff's address as P.O. Box 783 Huntington Park, CA 90255. This is the same address shown on the Amended Complaint filed in this action. Plaintiff filed this action on October 28, 2025, after the prefiling orders were entered.
If the clerk mistakenly files the litigation without the order, any party may file with the clerk a notice stating that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order as set forth in subdivision (a). (Cal. Code Civ. Procedure Sec. Sec. 391.7)
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 filing of the notice shall automatically stay the litigation. The litigation shall be automatically dismissed unless the plaintiff within 10 days of the filing of that notice obtains an order from the presiding judge permitting the filing of the litigation. (Id.)
Accordingly, the case is stayed. Plaintiff has 10 days to obtain an order from the presiding judge of this court permitting the filing of the litigation. The Court sets an OSC re Dismissal for failure to obtain leave of the Presiding Judge for September 2, 2026.
Case Number: 25STCV33449 Hearing Date: August 14, 2026 Dept: 414 25STCV33449 A. YOUNAN V. N. YOUNAN Friday, August 14, 2026 [TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT
The complaint alleges Defendant created multiple accounts on social media to attack and harass Plaintiff, and spread disparaging and harmful comments. Plaintiff alleges claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and invasion of privacy - false light. The clerk entered default against Defendant on March 5, 2026. Plaintiff now seeks judgment of $2,500,000.
While the Court's electronic file reflects that Plaintiff served a Statement of Damages on Defendant, it is not filed with the Court. The court shall render judgment as supported by the evidence, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint or the Statement of Damages. (Cal Code Civ Proc Sec. 585(b).)
A defaulting defendant confesses the material allegations of the complaint that are well pleaded. (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 362.)
Damages may only be awarded for a "well-pled cause of action, and to that end, the complaint must be examined." (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 899-900.)
The judge must "take time to analyze the complaint to ensure that it supports the judgment that plaintiff is seeking and to determine whether the evidence ... supports the requested damages. " [citation omitted]. (LCPFV, LLC v. Somatdary Incorporated (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 743.)
Plaintiff's declaration attests that she has been emotionally traumatized, was required to seek counseling, and is emotionally exhausted. (Younan decl., P.P. 18-19.) She attests she is a director for a global private equity company with a reputation