Lynd vs. Pancho’s Restaurant, Inc.

avoid such, please log in and test your equipment in advance of the hearing. Also, if technological or audibility issues arise during the proceeding, please call (657) 622-5908.

All remote video participants shall comply with the court’s “Guidelines for Remote appearances”, found at https://www.occourts.org/system/files/guidelinesforremoteproceedings.pdf.

IN-PERSON: Parties preferring to appear in-person for a law and motion hearing may do so, consistent with Section 367.75 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Orange County Local Rule 375.

PUBLIC ACCESS: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings.

No filming, broadcasting, photography, or electronic recording is permitted of the video session pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 1.150 and Orange County Superior Court rule 180.

August 21, 2026

# Case Name 1 Lynd vs. Pancho's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record Restaurant, Inc. The court GRANTS the unopposed motion of attorney ANDREA SITAR (of PLEISS, SITAR, McGRATH, GATES & AJELLO) to be relieved as counsel for Defendant PANCHOS RESTAURANT, INC.

The court finds moving attorney meets the requirements set forth in Rule 3.1362 of the California Rules of Court. The orders shall not become effective until the filing of a proof of service showing service of the order on the client.

The court notes that Defendant PANCHOS RESTAURANT, INC may not appear without counsel. (See, e.g., CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145 [“[U]nder a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney.”]; Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th

1276, 1284, n5 [“In California a corporation may not represent itself, except in a small claims proceeding. This prohibition stems from the notion a corporate representative who would likely appear on behalf of the corporation would be engaged in the unlicensed practice of law.”].)

As such, the court sets an Order to Show Cause Why the Answer for Defendant PANCHOS RESTAURANT, INC Should Not be Stricken and Default Entered. The OSC is set for January 11. 2027, at 9:00 am in Dept. W08.

Moving attorney to give notice and file a proof of service within 14 days.

4 Stellantis Financial Application for Writ of Possession Services, Inc. vs. Taylor The court GRANTS Plaintiff STELLANTIS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.’s unopposed application for writ of possession.

Plaintiff applies for a writ of possession against Defendant DWAYNE TAYLOR concerning a 2023 Dodge Durango, Vehicle Identification Number 1C4SDJCT2PC605297 (the “Vehicle”).

Plaintiff’s Application appears meritorious. Plaintiff establishes the probability validity of its claim to possession of the Vehicle. (Code Civ. Proc., § 512.040(b), 512.060(a); Holland Decl., ¶¶ 5-11). Plaintiff has established the requirements of Section 512.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Service now appears sufficient. (See POS, filed 5/28/26 [ROA 23].) The court denied an earlier application without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to file a timely proof of service. (See 3/13/26 Minute Order.)

Plaintiff is not required to post an undertaking. The principal amount owed on the lease ($51,157.51) exceeds the fair market value of the vehicle ($42,750.00). (Holland Decl., ¶¶ 7, 11-12.)

3