Alejandra Palestino and Alejandra Palestino, as Successor in Interest v. Defendants

(Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse: Dept. S25) August 25, 2026 DEPARTMENT S25 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Imed Hsini v. Mohsen Ghariani, et al. LASC Case No. 24LBCV00194 Hearing Date: September 11, 2024 Request for Default Judgment by Court

In preparation for the September 11, 2024 default judgment hearing, the court has identified several concerns with Plaintiff's request: Request for Entry of Default was entered on May 9, 2024 which is less than 30 days after service of the summons and complaint to Defendant Danielle Canissa and CDW Logistics, LLC. (C.C.P. Sec.587); Plaintiff checked the wrong box and should have checked "Court Judgment" in the "Request For" section on the 1st page. (See 7/29/2024 Request for Entry of Default/Judgment); No DOEs dismissal filed; No attached/adequate and/or authenticated exhibits provided with Plaintiff's Declaration.

Exhibits should demonstrate, e.g. costs for title and insurance for two vehicles, power of attorney, agreement entered into with Defendants to purchase trucks and provide logistic and shipping services to clients; No contractual or statutory basis provided by Plaintiff as to recovery of attorney fees. Also, attorney fees requested is more than what is allowed in a contract for recovery of reasonable attorney fees under Local Rule of the Court, rule 3.214(a); Prayer for complaint does not specify damages claimed; No notice of punitive damages as required under Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 425.11, subd. (c). Appears Plaintiff may be waiving punitive damages based upon proposed judgment; Proposed Judgment (UD-100) incorrect calculations as to attorney fees and prejudgment interest calculations.

Palestino and Alejandra Palestino, as Successo r in Intere st 's Motion to Consolidate Moving Part ies: Plaintiffs Alejandra Palestino and Alejandra Palestino, as Successor in Interest (" Plaintiffs ") Responding Part y: None Tentative Ruling

The Court agrees the related matters should be consolidated for the following reasons: (1) they all involve the same facts, (2) they all involve the same defendants; (3) they all involve the same causes of action; (4) they all claim damages; (5) they are all filed in the same courthouse; (6) they are all filed in the same county; and (7) they are all filed in the same department. Plaintiffs further state that consolidating the Related Cases would avoid the duplication of time, money, judicial resources and the risk of inconsistent rulings. Moreover, Defendants contend that they have complied with the procedural requirements of a consolidation motion pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350.

N o proposed order was filed in this cas e. A n order granting or denying the motion to consolidate is required to be filed in each case under CRC 3.350(c) . Further, the Court has no record of the filing of a notice of motion to consolidate in Case No s. 25LBCV02258, 25LBCP00431, 25LBCP00432, 25LBCP00439 and 26LBCV00123 as required by CRC 3.350(1)(C) . The instant motion is CONTINUED to September 4, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. for Plaintiff to comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(1)(C) .

Case Number: 25LBCV00550 Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Dept: S25 Motion: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Moving Part y: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("Defendant") Responding Part y: Plaintiff Lana D Tuffnell ("Plaintiff")