DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV02835·butte·Civil·Settlement Dispute
Hearing about 1 month agoDENIED

Thompson, Lawrence Jr et al v. General Motors, LLC

Motion to Compel Disbursement of Undisputed Settlement Funds

Hearing date
Jul 8, 2026
Department
Not specified
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLawrence Thompson Jr
DefendantGeneral Motors, LLC

Ruling

Judge Benson – Law & Motion – Wednesday, July 8, 2026 @ 9:00 AM

1. 23CV02828 Sage, Bobbie v. Humes, David

EVENT: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (Defense Counsel)

The motion fails to comply with the notice requirements of CCP 1005. The proof of service states defendant and opposing counsel were served with the motion by mail on June 23, 2026. Factoring in the July 4 Court holiday (observed on July 3), June 23 is only 10 court days before the hearing. CCP 1005 requires a minimum 16 court days, plus an additional 5 calendar days for mailing. Additionally, although the motion references the mandatory Judicial Council form MC- 052, no such form was filed with the Court. Accordingly, the motion is continued to August 5, 2026 at 9:00am for counsel to file MC-052. Defense counsel shall provide notice to opposing counsel and Defendant of the continued hearing date and time.

2. 24CV02835 Thompson, Lawrence Jr et al v. General Motors, LLC

EVENT: Motion to Compel Disbursement of Undisputed Settlement Funds

Motion to Compel Disbursement of Undisputed Settlement Funds is DENIED. There is no legal basis providing the Court with authority to “compel disbursement of funds”.

3. 24CV04217 Schmidt, Aaron et al v. Ford Motor Company

EVENT: Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions, or in the Alternative, Issue Sanctions Against Plaintiff

Counsel is ordered to appear. The Court will hear from defense counsel as to whether they are available on any of the dates proposed by Plaintiffs in July for Mr. Schmidt’s deposition. If they are available, counsel shall inform the Court and opposing counsel as to which date they prefer, and Mr. Schmidt will be ordered to appear on that date. Failure to appear for deposition on that date by either Mr. Schmidt or his counsel will result in terminating sanctions upon further noticed motion. 1

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share