Irvine Westpark Plaza LLC vs. Diesel 1 LLC

Toorak also argues that the Discovery Referee incorrectly found that Plaintiffs did not waive privilege by disclosing a significant part of communications. The Discovery Referee construed the term “the communication” to refer to each individual email, whereas Toorak contends that “the communication” should be construed to mean the entire email chain, taken together. (ROA 1949 at 16:11-20.) The Court finds the Discovery Referee’s analysis to be well reasoned.

Finally, Toorak contends that the Discovery Referee incorrectly found that any challenge to the documents listed in entries 1-80 of Plaintiffs’ privilege log to be time-barred. However, the Discovery Referee noted that “Toorak’s reply did not address the arguments that certain challenges are time-barred.” The Court has reviewed Toorak’s reply and confirmed the same.

Toorak’s objections are overruled.

Toorak shall give notice of this ruling.

7 Irvine TENTATIVE RULING: Westpark Plaza LLC vs. Counsel Constantine Panagotacos and James Higgins of Dunn & Diesel 1 LLC Panagotacos LLP move to be relieved as counsel for the following Defendants: Diesel 1 LLC, 100 Percent Health Management, LLC, Nigel Stobart, Kim Stobart, Brandon Livingood, and Rebecca Livingood.

The court GRANTS each motion.

The court finds that Moving Counsel has complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, and has complied with the requirements of this court’s 6/17/26 order continuing the instant motions.

The court sets an order to show cause for October 27, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this department for Defendants 100 Percent Health Management, LLC and Diesel 1, LLC regarding their status as unrepresented entities.

Within 15 days of receiving the signed Form MC-053 back from the court, Moving Counsel shall serve Defendants with the signed Form MC-053 and notice of this ruling, in the manner described in Rules of Court rule 3.1362(d).

The order relieving counsel will be effective upon the filing of a proof of service of the executed order upon all parties.

Moving Counsel shall give notice.

8 Medina vs. TENTATIVE RULING: SACER Enterprises, Motion to Consolidate LLC

Defendants Miguel Lopez Hernandez and Sacer Enterprises, LLC moves to consolidate this case with Hernandez v. Mathis Bros. Oklahoma LLC et al. (30-2023-01323474-CU-PA-NJC) for all purposes For the following reasons, the motion to consolidate the two matters is GRANTED. The two matters are consolidated for all purposes. This action (2022-01292548) shall be the lead action.

Procedural Requirements for a Motion to Consolidate

Rule 3.350(a) of the California Rules of Court sets forth the requirements for a motion to consolidate:

(1) A notice of motion to consolidate must:

(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.

(2) The motion to consolidate:

(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case; (B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.

General Principles Re Consolidation of Cases

When there are actions involving common questions of law or fact