ABLE INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC v. CHRISTAIN COPELIN

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 512) August 20, 2026 DEPARTMENT 512 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Effective May 4, 2026: Judge Karine Mkrtchyan Presiding

Tentative Rulings are posted before the hearing. If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 512 (formerly Dept. 54) at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is [email protected] . The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. The party submitting to the tentative must include to the e-mail all other counsel (or party if self-represented) to the action.

Please note that if a party fails to appear at a law and motion hearing without having given notice under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1204, subd. (c), the court may take the matter off calendar, to be reset only upon motion, or may rule on the matter. If only one party has submitted, the Court may still hear the motion at the hearing or adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the above e-mail address is ONLY to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

Case Number: 24STCV32770 Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 Dept: 512 CASE NUMBER: 24STCV32770 CASE NAME: Parisa Bazgir v. Integon Preferred Insurance Company et. al.

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER RESETTING THE DISCOVERY AND MOTION CUT-OFF TO RUN FROM THE DECEMBER 14, 2026 TRIAL DATE IS DENIED. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 166 (a)(1), the Court will not entertain oral argument for ex parte application for relief.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirement of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1202, subdivision (c), that an applicant for an ex parte order must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.

Furthermore, the Court continued the Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication of Defendants solely to allow both parties to submit a Separate Statement in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350. The Motion was continued on the date of the hearing - after an opposition and reply briefs were due and had been filed. The Court did not invite further or supplemental oppositions or reply briefs. The court therefore DENIES the Ex Parte Application. For all the foregoing reasons, the Ex Parte Application is DENIED. Moving party is to give notice.

Case Number: 25STCV25867 Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 Dept: 512 CASE NUMBER: 25STCV25867 CASE NAME: ABLE INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC v. CHRISTAIN COPELIN

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TO SPECIALLY SET AND ADVANCE HEARING DATE IS DENIED Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 166 (a)(1), the Court will not entertain oral argument for ex parte application for relief.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirement of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1202, subdivision (c), that an applicant for an ex parte order must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.

Furthermore, moving party has not demonstrated any legal authority that there is a statutory right to priority hearing on a plaintiff's motion to strike a prejudgment claim of right to possession and an answer after a Motion for Summary Judgment has been granted on the issue of possession as between Plaintiff/moving party and Defendant/tenant. (See June 29, 2026 Ruling.) For all the foregoing reasons, the Ex Parte Application is DENIED. Moving party is to give notice.

Case Number: 26STCV14366 Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 Dept: 512 HEARING DATE: Thurs., August 20, 2026 JUDGE /DEPT: Mkrtchyan/512 CASE NAME: Luban Z Construction Corp. v. Nexus Urban COMP. FILED: 05-05-26 Development LLC, et al. CASE NUMBER: 26STCV14366 NOTICE: OK PROCEEDINGS: DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE MOVING PARTY: Defendants Nexus Urban Development, LLC; Nexus 4918 Riverton, LLC; Nexus 4545 Prospect, LLC; GS 1929 Commonwealth Ave, LLC; LM Equity Partners LLC; Yuhui Li; Xufei Ai; and Giovanni F. Morales RESP. PARTY: Plaintiffs Luban Z Construction Corp. DEMURRER WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP Sec.Sec. 430.10, et seq.; 435; 436)

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Nexus Urban Development, LLC; Nexus 4918 Riverton, LLC; Nexus 4545 Prospect, LLC; GS 1929 Commonwealth Ave, LLC; LM Equity Partners LLC; Yuhui Li; Xufei Ai; and Giovanni F. Morales's Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 30 DAYS' LEAVE TO AMEND as to the eighth cause of action. Defendants' Motion to Strike the allegations regarding punitive damages from the eighth cause of action and the prayer for relief in the Complaint is GRANTED. Moving parties are ordered to give notice. SERVICE: [X] Proof of