Keyshawn Johnson v. Christopher Ellison

On April 29, 2026, the WCAB found that "jurisdiction over this matter is not exclusively with the WCAB if it is decided that this case meets any of the exceptions to the exclusive remedy rule, the determination of which is beyond the scope of WCAB authority and rests with the Superior Court."

On July 17, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from stay and a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Defendant opposes both motions because, inter alia, Plaintiff has not shown that this case meets an exception and should proceed in this Court.

Accordingly, the Court orders supplemental briefing about whether this case meets any of the exceptions to the exclusive remedy rule. The hearings are CONTINUED to November 10, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. Simultaneous briefs shall be filed and served no later than October 27, 2026. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Dated this 18th day of August 2026 | | | Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court |

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT KEYSHAWN JOHNSON, Plaintiff, vs. CHRISTOPHER ELLISON, Defendant. |

))))))))))) | CASE NO.: 25STCV15166 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES Dept. 506 8:30 a.m. August 18, 2026 |

On January 9, 2026, Plaintiff Keyshawn Johnson filed a motion to compel Defendant Christopher Ellison's further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Despite being scheduled as only one motion and one hearing, the total substance of the motion is that of two motions. This unfairly allows Plaintiff to take only one hearing reservation (instead of two) and results in an inaccurate projection and accounting of the Court's workload, inconveniencing both the Court and other litigants. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay one additional motion filing fee within 10 days.

According to both the Opposition and Reply, Defendant served supplemental responses on August 4, 2026. The motion is therefore DENIED AS MOOT. If the responses are indeed deficient, as Plaintiff contends in the Reply, then Plaintiff's remedy is to seek further responses, following the procedures under the law and Exhibit A of Department 506's Courtroom Information (available on the Court's website). The Court will not review the sufficiency of new responses with this motion.

The request for sanctions is also DENIED. Defendant's objections raised issues with confidentiality, trade secrets, and third-party privacy. (See Opposition at pp. 3-4.) A Protective Order was not entered until July 24, 2026, and Defendant provided supplemental responses shortly thereafter, on August 4, 2026. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant acted with substantial justification and the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff's two other motions scheduled for August 20, 2026 (regarding Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for Admission) are ADVANCED to this date and are also DENIED AS MOOT.

A Non-Appearance Case Review re: Payment of Additional Filing Fee is scheduled for September 2, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Dated this 18th day of August 2026 | | | Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court | Case Number: 25STCV15618 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: 506 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 14TH & VELASCO LLC, Plaintiff, vs. KEVIN S. BEMEL, et al., Defendants. |)))))))