Velasco Macias v. Lyft Inc., et al
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
10. Velasco Macias v. Lyft Inc., et al, Case No. CIVSB2519010 Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration 8/7/26, 9:00 a.m., S-17 The Court would CONTINUE this matter to allow proper briefing. In this case, a notice of non-opposition to the motion was filed by movant on July 30, 2026. Typically, the Court would grant an unopposed motion, as the failure to oppose acts as a concession to the arguments set forth therein. However, in this case, it appears that Plaintiff electronically filed an opposition on the afternoon of August 6, 2026. The Court would hear argument on whether there is good cause to consider the late-filed opposition. Presuming good cause for argument’s sake, the Court would continue to allow a Reply and proper consideration.
*** *** ***
11. Jefferson v. Warren, et al, Case No. CIVSB2414011 Defendant County’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 8/7/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17 Tentative Rulings As to Evidentiary Objections: The Court would OVERRULE in their entirety. As to the Motion: The Court would GRANT the County’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $15,770.16. Case Summary This is personal injury litigation. Plaintiff, a minor, alleges that on April 27, 2023, she was waiting at a school bus stop when she was struck by a vehicle driven by Defendant Warren.
As such, she filed suit against Defendant Warren and also filed against the County, the State, and the Snowline Joint Unified School District. She initially filed suit on April 29, 2024. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on February 14, 2025, in the light of a demurrer. (Tentative, Feb. 27, 2025 [holding the demurrer moot].) That FAC was subject to a sustained demurrer on July 8, 2025. (Tentative, July 8, 2025.) That ruling allowed thirty days leave to amend. (Ibid.) Relevant here, Plaintiff failed to amend within the allotted timeline, and the County applied ex parte on October 23, 2025, for an order dismissing Plaintiff’s action for failure to amend.
The Court continued the matter to November 5, 2025, to allow further briefing. In the interim Plaintiff attempted to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on October 24, 2025. This filing 3
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”