In the Matter of the Bruce Sandoval Trust

prepare a biennial investigator report for the next hearing date. The Clerk is directed to send notice to the parties.

In the Matter of the Bruce Sandoval Trust 26-60272

ACCOUNTING HEARING

TENTATIVE RULING: This accounting hearing is VACATED as redundant, in light of Trustees’ July 31, 2026, Petition to Approve Seventh Account set for hearing on September 03, 2026.

CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

M5 Automotive LLC v. Kastner Automotive Inc. et al 22CV000567

PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT M5 AUTOMOTIVE LLC'S MOTION FOR: (1) AN ORDER RULING THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEE AND COST AWARD IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY STAYED BY APPEAL AND THAT AN UNDERTAKING IS REQUIRED; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, (2) AN ORDER REQUIRING A DISCRETIONARY UNDERTAKING

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The Court concludes that the Fee and Cost Appeal (appealing the post-judgment orders awarding $1,650,607.75 in attorneys’ fees and $49,971.61 in costs to M5 (“Fee and Cost Award”)) is not subject to the automatic stay without an undertaking under the final provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1, subdivision (d). Rather, because both the Merits Award (defined below) and Fee and Costs Award have been appealed, an undertaking is required to stay the enforcement thereof pursuant to section 917.1, subdivision (a)(1), which undertaking is calculated based on the Merits Award and Fee and Cost Award pursuant to the first provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1, subdivision (d), less any amount that has been satisfied (here, the Merits Award).

Thus, the perfecting of the appeals does not serve to stay enforcement of the Fee and Cost Award unless an undertaking of one and one-half times the Fee and Cost Award is posted. The alternative request to require a discretionary bond under section 917.9 is therefore MOOT.

The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.