Request for Court Judgment
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)
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
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?”
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 critical to her work. (Id. P. 20.) She required long-term, continued mental health therapy and has had to repair her reputation. (Id. at P. 21.)
Plaintiff is required to submit a brief summary identifying in part, the nature of Plaintiff's claims. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.) More particularly, Plaintiff is ordered to address the claims on which judgment is sought, and the proper measure of damages for each claim as supported by authority.
Plaintiff has not provided any evidence of damages. (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 272 ["... it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove up his damages, with actual evidence."].) There is no evidence to support the Plaintiff's damage to reputation. Plaintiff did not submit bills documenting expenses incurred for mental therapy or to repair her reputation.
Accordingly, the Court continues the hearing to January 2, 2027. Plaintiff is ordered to file the Statement of Damages served on Defendant, submit a summary of the case as described above, and a supplemental declaration with documentary evidence supporting the damage claim. All documents shall be filed 10 court days before the hearing.
Case Number: 26STCV02911 Hearing Date: August 14, 2026 Dept: 414 26STCV02911 MORRIS v. MRC CREATIONS, LLC, ET AL. Friday, August 14, 2026 [TENTATIVE] ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER IN PART AND GRANTING THE MOTION TO STRIKE IN PART (1987) [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT (2412)
I. BACKGROUND
The complaint alleges that Defendant, MRC Creations, (known to Plaintiff as "Fredericks of Hollywood") employed Plaintiff as a model. Plaintiff was on the premises on May 28, 2024, for a photoshoot, where she was instructed to wear a "Beyond-008 Pleaser Shoe," allegedly manufactured by Golden Delta Enterprises, Inc. dba Pleaser USA. Plaintiff fell while walking in the shoes over a slippery and hazardous area. Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence, negligent undertaking, premises liability, violation of Labor Code Sec. 3706, and strict products liability. Defendant, Golden Delta Enterprises, Inc. dba Pleaser USA, Inc. ("Golden Delta") demurs to all claims alleged in the complaint.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS