Peter Soto As Holder Of The Master Lease vs. Ortega

The Court Clerk is to SEAL the records of this case from the public and only the Defendants and Plaintiff shall have access.

The Court Clerk is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling. 3 30-2026-01561177 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate (ROA Peter Soto As Holder 42). Of The Master Lease vs. Ortega The Court takes Judicial Notice of 26V000355, 7/6/3036 Minute Order (ROA 27), 7/13/2026 Minute Order (ROA 28), Complaint (ROA 2), 8/13/2026 Minute Order (ROA 46), and 8/18/2026 Minute Order (ROA 51).

26V00355 is a domestic violence restraining order case that the Plaintiff sought against the Defendant. On March 5, 2026, another judicial office denied the permanent restraining order in 26V00355. At trial in this matter on 7/6/2026, the Defendant and Plaintiff both testified that the Defendant was arrested as a result of the temporary restraining order in 26V00355.

The Court’s ruling on 7/13/2026 makes clear that no permanent restraining order was issued as to 26V00355. The 7/13/2026 ruling also makes clear that the Defendant did not provide evidence that she was the victim of a crime in which the Plaintiff was the perpetrator. The text message the Defendant presented as evidence showed that Plaintiff and Defendant had a past sexual relationship, which she then said she wanted to stop having.

Although the Defendant now alleges in her moving papers that she was “incapacitated to defend” herself in court at the trial on July 6, 2026, no evidence supports that allegation. The Defendant was present in court and testified without issue; she may have appeared upset or demonstrated emotion during the proceedings, but she articulated her points and positions throughout. The Defendant testified at trial that she had not paid the total rent under the parties' agreement since February 2026, when she paid a portion of the rent ($300 of $1350). Defendant presented no evidence at trial to support her habitability claim. Therefore, judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff.

Defendant fails to establish a legal basis to support the Motion to Vacate.

The Court DENIES the Motion to Vacate.

The Court Clerk is to notify the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to proceed with the lockout.

The Court Clerk is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.

4 30-2026-01569359 The Court has read and considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Plaintiff’s USCMF Joule La Request for Admissions Admitted (ROA 28) and Proof of Service (ROA 24). Floresta, LLC vs. Yazouri IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions Admitted is granted and that the truth of all specified matters, and the genuineness of all specified documents, in the Plaintiff’s Request for Admission to Defendant Lubna Yazouri (Set One), propounded by Plaintiff and served on Defendant on June 26, 2026, be deemed admitted.