DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
30-2024-01404393-CU-BC-CJC·orange·Civil·Breach of Contract
Hearing todayGRANTED

Hansei Solutions, LLC. vs. Better Soul, Inc.

Motion to Vacate Dismissal

Hearing date
Aug 21, 2026
Department
C31
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHansei Solutions, LLC.
DefendantBetter Soul, Inc.

Ruling

30-2025- The motion of attorney Lessing C. Solov from Solov & 01537296-CU- Teitell, a P.C., to be relieved as counsel of record for PA-CJC plaintiff Fermin Sepulveda is GRANTED.

Moving attorney has shown compliance with all the requirements of the California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.

Moving attorney is ORDERED to give notice to client, and file proof of service of the Court’s order as entered.

Withdrawal will be effective upon filing of proof of service of the order.

3 Hansei Motion to Vacate Dismissal Solutions, LLC. vs. Better Soul, Plaintiff Hansei Solutions, LLC’s unopposed motion to Inc. vacate the dismissal of the fifth and sixth causes of action 30-2024- in the First Amended Complaint entered on 3/6/2026 01404393-CU- (ROA 52) is GRANTED. BC-CJC Plaintiff has demonstrated the request for dismissal was due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. (Code Civ. Proc.§ 473, subd. (b).)

The dismissal of the fifth and sixth causes of action in the First Amended Complaint entered on 3/6/2026 (ROA 52) is VACATED.

Clerk to give notice.

4 Espinoza Aceves Motion to Consolidate Cases vs. Southern California Edison Defendant/cross-complainant Southern California Edison Company Company’s (SCE) motion to consolidate is DENIED. 30-2024- 01436382-CU- SCE moves to consolidate the following cases for all PO-CJC purposes:

(1) Jonhathan Espinoza Aceves v. Southern California Edison Company, et al., case number 2024-01436382 (Aceves) (2) KF Properties, Inc. v. Brightview Landscapes, LLC, case number 2025-01494489 (KF Properties); and (3) Southern California Edison Company v. Brightview Landscape Services, Inc., et al., case number 2025- 01534849 (SCE)

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