DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
310·orange·Civil·Pro Hac Vice Admission
Hearing todayGRANTED

Santos vs. Acacio Fertility Center, Inc.

Motion to admit counsel pro hac vice

Hearing date
Aug 24, 2026
Department
C24
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSantos
DefendantAcacio Fertility Center, Inc.
DefendantBrian David Acacio, M.D.
DefendantBrian David M.D., APC
DefendantJohn Scodras, PhD

Attorneys

Kim M. Schmidfor Defendant

Ruling

of action remains viable, punitive damages may be recoverable pursuant to said claim. (Civ. Code § 3294(a).)

The 8/24/26 CMC is continued to 10/5/26 at 8:45am.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

310 Santos vs. Defendants Acacio Fertility Center, Inc., Brian Acacio Fertility David Acacio, M.D., Brian David M.D., APC and Center, Inc. John Scodras, PhD’s motion to admit counsel Kim M. Schmid to appear pro hac vice is GRANTED.

Counsel has submitted a verified application that complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 9.40.

The 8/24/26 CMC shall remain on calendar.

Defendants shall give notice.

311 Kerns vs. Burch The motion to compel arbitration filed by defendants Burch Shepard Family Law Group, APC and Robert Brett Burch (Defendants) is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

Plaintiff Bryan Kerns shall submit his claims against the Defendants to binding arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement set forth in Paragraph 6(A) of the Attorney-Client Retainer Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the declaration of Robert Burch.

Defendants met their burden to show a written arbitration agreement that covers plaintiff’s claims. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; see also Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [elements]; Ex. A; para. 6(A).) While plaintiff argues the Defendants never made a demand to arbitrate, “[t]he statute does not include a requirement that the petitioning party have made

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