Chan vs. Rhema Net Corporation

the rules, including California Rules of Court rule 3.725 and Local Rule 369.

Plaintiff to give notice.

6 Chan vs. Rhema Motion to Tax Costs Net Corporation The court GRANTS Plaintiff JOHNSON CHAN’s motion to tax or strike prejudgment costs claimed by Defendant(s).

Defense counsel filed a Memorandum of Costs Summary and Worksheet (ROAs 135, 137) on 5/8/26. The documents appear to have been filed on behalf of RHEMA NET CORPORATION, who remains an active defendant in this action and has not been deemed a prevailing party.

In the opposing papers, defense counsel states that the cost memorandum was intended for Defendant JENNIFER CHANG, who successfully demurred.

To the extent the documents were intended for co- defendant Chang, the documents are at best premature as no judgment has been entered in this action.

Prejudgment costs must be claimed and contested in accordance with the rules adopted by the Judicial Council or are deemed waived. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1034(a); Hydratec, Inc. v. Sun Valley 260 Orchard & Vineyard Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 924, 929.) The deadline to file and serve a cost memorandum is the earlier of 15 days after service of notice of entry of judgment, or 180 days after entry of judgment. (See Cal. Rules Ct., Rule 3.1700(a)(1).)

As such, the court hereby STRIKES the entirety of the claimed costs at this time, without prejudice to Defendant(s)’ possibly claiming these costs after a judgment is entered.

The court further notes that a separate judgment relating to Defendant Chang does not appear appropriate. Defendant Chang successfully demurred to the fourth cause of action in the Third Amended Complaint (the

operative pleading), the only claim asserted against her. (See 4/24/26 Minute Order [ROA 125].) Defendant Chang therefore is no longer a pending defendant in this action. However, a judgment has not yet been entered in Defendant Chang’s favor, and the court is not exercising its discretion at this time to render a judgment as to Defendant Chang only. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 579 [trial court has discretion to render judgment against a defendant and allow the action to proceed against others whenever a several judgment is proper].)

Plaintiff to give notice.

7 Elliott vs. Thai Motion to Enter Stipulated Judgment

The court DENIES Defendants NAM THANH THAI and TRUNG THANH THAI’s Motion to Enter Stipulated Judgment. As explained below, this action is no longer pending and the court did not retain jurisdiction before the action was dismissed by the parties. As such, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the request.

Defendants request that the court enter a stipulated judgment pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (See Zotti Decl., ¶¶ 6 & 8 & Exhs. 1-2.) The settlement agreement contains a clause where the parties agree that this court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement under section 664.6. (Id., Exh. 1 at § 13.)

Importantly, the parties dismissed this action with prejudice over a year-and-a-half ago. (See Request for Dismissal of Complaint with Prejudice, filed by Plaintiff on 2/13/25 [ROA 96] and Request for Dismissal of Cross- Complaint with Prejudice, filed by Cross-Complainants on 2/13/25 [ROA 99].)

The parties appear to have used an older version of the Judicial Council “Request for Dismissal” form (CIV-110), when dismissing both the complaint and cross-complaint with prejudice. (ROAs 96 & 99.) The current version of mandatory CIV-110 (revised on 1/1/25) includes a dismissal

7