ZHEJIANG QUNYING VEHICLE CO LTD. VS. CHO INTERNATIONAL INC.

# Case Name Tentative

1. ZHEJIANG QUNYING VEHICLE CO LTD. VS. CHO INTERNATIONAL INC. 2023-01306529 MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE The Application of B. Robert Liu to Appear Pro Hac Vice for plaintiff Zhejiang Qunying Vehicle Co. Ltd. is GRANTED.

Moving attorney has satisfied all the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.

Moving attorney to give notice.

2. IMPERIAL BAG & PAPER CO LLC VS. ORANGE COURIER INC 2025-01497909 MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL OF RECORD The motion of attorney William Kersten to withdraw as attorney of record for defendant Orange Courier, Inc. is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 284, CRC 3.1362.)

William Kersten will be relieved as counsel of record for client effective upon filing of a proof of service of the signed order on client.

The Court advises Defendant that in California a corporation may not represent itself, except in a small claims proceeding. (Merco Construction Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 147.) Thus, Defendant “must obtain new counsel, or risk forfeiting important rights through nonrepresentation.” (Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284, fn. 5.)

Moving attorney is to give notice.

3. CINEMATIC CAPITAL CORP. VS. SAID 2023-01343920 1. MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 2. MOTION FOR REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

Defendant Mohamed Said’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, set one, and Requests for Admission are CONTINUED to 9/22/26 at 9:00 a.m., in Dept. C32. First, the Court finds the parties meet and confer efforts to be insufficient. “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 20216.040(a).)

A letter is not an approved meet and confer method, further only allowing three days to provide supplemental responses is not good faith. Additionally, Plaintiff’s already served supplemental responses contain numerous boilerplate and inappropriate objections such as objecting to producing medical records and refusing to respond to requests for admission on the basis of their numbering.