Munoz v. Munoz

Finally, Defendants argue that there is a triable issue of fact regarding damages because Plaintiff received a check in the amount of $10,662.93 from Mercury Insurance Company in relation to the subject vehicle, such that Plaintiff's damages are less than the contract amount. (Declaration of Galia Rivera, Exhibit A.)

The Court determines that Defendants have raised a triable issue of material fact as to damages. In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejects Plaintiff's argument that the collateral source rule bars consideration of the insurance payment as the collateral source rule does not apply to breach of contract claims. (Plut v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 98, 107.) Because damages are an essential element of both causes of action, and Defendants have presented evidence creating a triable issue, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Case Number: 25PSCV00049 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: H Munoz., et al v. Munoz., Case No. 25PSCV00049 ORDER ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Counsel for Defendant Mercedes Munoz's (i.e., Aniko Felsen's) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of the proof of service reflecting service of the signed order upon the Client at the Client's last known address.

Background

Plaintiffs Norma Munoz and Ruben Munoz ("Plaintiffs") allegedly entered into a series of written agreements with Defendant Mercedes Munoz ("Defendant") to purchase real property from the Defendant and for Defendant to convert the garage to a guest house.

On January 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting causes of action against Defendant, and Does 1-20 for: (1) Breach of Written Agreement, (2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Fraud in the Inducement, and (4) Unjust enrichment.

A Case Management Conference is set for October 21, 2026.

Discussion

Aniko Felsen seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant ("Client"). California Rule of Court ("CRC") Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil form (MC-053)).

The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.

The Court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court rule 3.1362 enumerated above have been sufficiently met. Moving counsel has filed all three required forms (MC-051, -052, and -053), as well as a proof of service indicating that all forms were served on the opposing parties and Client.

Accordingly, the motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of the proof of service reflecting service of the signed order upon the Client at the Client's last known address.

In light of the Court's ruling, the Court takes off calendar the hearing on the separately filed motion to be relieved as counsel that was calendared for 8/26/26 (and also was filed by Aniko Felsen as to Client), as that motion is now moot. [FN]

[FN] As the Court will address at the hearing, the email and text communications attached to the declaration in support of that separately filed motion to be relieved as counsel are very concerning; while the Court does not know the source of those communications, given the violent threats made therein, the communications have been reported to court security.

Case Number: 25PSCV03636 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: H ODK Capital LLC v. Teach Hair Inc., et al., Case No. 25PSCV03636 ORDER ON (1) MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND (2) DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION

1. Defendant Perez's Motion TO Set Aside Entry of Default is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff ODK Capital's Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED.

Background

Plaintiff ODK Capital, LLC ("Plaintiff") alleges as follows: On June 24, 2024, Teach Hair Inc. ("THI") entered into a Business Loan and Security Agreement and accompanying supplement ("BLSA") in favor of Celtic Bank ("Celtic"), wherein Celtic agreed to loan monies to THI in exchange for repayment.

Crystal Perez ("Perez") contemporaneously executed a personal guaranty.

Celtic subsequently assigned the BLSA to Plaintiff.

THI has failed to make payments due.

On October 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against THI and Perez for: (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Breach of Guaranty.

On December 10, 2025, THI's and Perez's defaults were entered.