Delgadillo vs. General Motors, LLC

Defense counsel shall give notice.

306 Pollock vs. The motion by Laguna Niguel Investors No. 1, LLC Laguna Niguel (Laguna) to vacate the order granting Newmark Investors No 1, Merrill Companies, Inc. (Newmark) leave to file a LLC cross-complaint is DENIED.

Here, the order Laguna seeks to vacate is the 3/13/26 Order entered pursuant to stipulation of the parties. (ROA 86.) At the time the stipulation and proposed order was submitted to the court, Laguna was not a party to the action and the only parties were the plaintiff, Patti Pollock, and Newmark. The stipulation was signed by all parties to the action. Although Laguna was not a party to the action, Newmark served a copy of the stipulation and proposed order on Laguna on 3/11/26. Laguna did not file any objection to the stipulation.

Laguna argues the order should be vacated pursuant to CCP §473(d) which allows the court to set aside a “void order.” This argument lacks merit. Further, Laguna mistakenly argues the stipulation was incomplete because it failed to disclose there had been a joint dismissal of cross-complaints earlier in the action. (Howell Decl. ¶11.) It was the Court that entered the dismissal.

Laguna’s argument that Newmark is equitably estopped from pursuing the cross-complaint because of separate agreements between the two companies does not warrant vacating the order.

Newmark shall give notice.

307 Delgadillo vs. Plaintiff Olivia Delgadillo’s motion for attorney fees General Motors, and costs is GRANTED in the reduced amount of LLC $9,880 in fees and $1,679.88 in costs, for a total amount of $11,659.88. (Civ. Code § 1794, subd. (d).)

The Court approves the hourly rate of Derhartounian, but reduces the hourly rates of Storti, Hayes, Pascal and Lara to $350 and of Barry to $500, based on the type of work performed and/or lack of evidence of the attorney’s level of skill and experience. The Court reduces time spent by Derhartouniar by 3.7 hours, Barry by 14.1 hours, and all other attorneys by 4.3 hours, which the Court finds excessive, inflated or not actually incurred; all other time spent is approved. (See Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 36 [standard for determining reasonableness of fees].) The Court declines to award a multiplier. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1138 [purpose of fee enhancement].)

The court continues the 8/24/26 OSC to 10/5/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24. If the case is fully resolved, please file a dismissal at least 5 court days before the hearing.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

308 Stewart vs. Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s (Defendant) Hyundai Motor demurrer to the first amended complaint (FAC) of America plaintiffs Gregory P. Stewart and Arleen S. Ramos (collectively, Plaintiffs) is OVERRULED. Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.

Defendant shall file an answer to the FAC within 20 days.

Motion No. 1: Demurrer

Defendant demurs to the second cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b), the third cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3), and the fifth cause of action for fraudulent inducement- concealment.