Donovan v. Taft

# Case Name Tentative

50. Orthopaedic Gary S. Pancer, Sam A. Goli, and Wilson Elser Moskowitz Specialty Edelman & Dicker LLP motion to be relieved as counsel for Institute OCA Care of CA, LLC, is CONTINUED to September 28, 2026 Medical at 2:00 p.m. in Department C28. Group of There is no proof of service on the client. (Cal. Rules of Court, Orange Rule 3.1362, subd. (d).) County v. OCA Care of Moving parties shall serve all moving papers on the client, CA, LLC along with a notice of continuance on the client and all parties who have appeared, and shall file proof of service of same, no 2025- later than Friday 8/28/26. 01483911 Moving parties shall give notice of this ruling.

51. Valvano v. Attorneys Richard N. Asfar and Adams & Reese, LLP’s motion Hurtado to be relieved as counsel for defendant Jeffrey B. Moreno is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 284, CRC 3.1362.) This order 2025- shall become effective upon the filing of the proof of service of 01515962 the executed order on defendant Moreno.

Moving counsel shall give notice of this ruling.

52. Sunwest Anthony O. Egbase, Esq. and A.O.E. Law & Associates, Inc.’s Bank v. motion to be relieved as counsel of record for Grove Hospice Encino Care, Inc. is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 284, CRC 3.1362.) Towers, LLC This order shall become effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the executed order on Grove Hospice Care, Inc. 2023- 01329501 An order to show cause is set for October 2, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28. At the hearing, the Court will strike the answer and enter default for defendant Grove Hospice Care, Inc. for their failure to appear through counsel unless they (a) substitute in new counsel before the hearing or (b) appear at the hearing and show good cause otherwise. (CLD Construction, Inc. v.

City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4th 1141, 1146 [holding that a corporation must appear through counsel]; Van Gundy v. Camelot Resorts, Inc. (1983) 152 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 29, 31-32 [court should enter default for corporation that fails to appear through counsel].)

Moving counsel shall give notice of this ruling.

53. Donovan v. Gina M. Austin, Esq., Tamara Rozmus, Esq., and Austin Legal Taft Group, APC’s motion to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant Robert Taft is CONTINUED to October 5, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in this department.

# Case Name Tentative

2021- 01225158 There is no proof of service of the moving papers on the client or anyone else. “The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) While the supporting attorney declaration states that counsel has served the client via mail, this attestation alone is not sufficient to satisfy the service by mail requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (a), or the proof of service requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a.

Moving counsel is ORDERED to (1) properly serve all moving papers, including notice of the continued hearing date above, on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (2) file proof of service of the same, by no later than Friday 8/28/26.

Moving counsel shall give notice of this ruling.

54. City of Defendant Willard Marine, Inc.’s motion to strike portions of Huntington the Complaint is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435, 436 Beach v. [authorizing motion].) Moving party shall file an Answer to Willard the Complaint within 10 days. Marine, Inc. No point is served in striking a prayer for attorney fees, as 2026- “there [is] no requirement they be pled at all.” (Snatchko v. 01547404 Westfield LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 469, 497.)

The Complaint alleges sufficient facts supporting the validity of the challenged liquidated damages provision (Complaint, ¶ 14), which allegations are presumed correct. (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255 [“In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth”].)

Whether the liquidated damages provision is valid, or an unenforceable penalty, requires an examination of “the actual circumstances of a liquidated damages clause.” (Civ. Code, § 1671, subd. (b); Graylee v. Castro (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1107, 1114, emphasis added; see also Krechuniak v. Noorzoy (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 713, 722 [“demonstrating the provision is unreasonable requires consideration of existing circumstances relevant to the formation of the contract ... the parties’ intent should be derived from the entire agreement and its surrounding circumstances;” emphasis added, internal citations omitted.) Thus, the validity of the liquidated damages provision cannot be determined in the context of a