DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2025-1529605·orange·Civil·Case Management Conference
Hearing todayNo tentative

Newport Medical Solutions vs. Orthopedic Institute of Newport Beach

None

Hearing date
Aug 26, 2026
Department
N18
Prevailing
N/A

Ruling

208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135; Khoury, 14 Cal.App.4th at 616.) Accordingly, the special demurrer is overruled.

Cross-Defendants shall give notice.

5. 2026-1559626 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike the Proof of Service is granted. Hernandez vs. Garduno Plaintiffs filed a Declaration of Diligence re: Francisco Garduno (ROA 10) under the wrong event, as a “Proof of Service,” and then re-filed the same document under the correct event, as a “Declaration of Diligence” that same day (ROA 12.) The Court has inherent discretion under CCP section 128, to “preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence” and to “provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(1), (a)(3).)

In the Court’s exercise of this discretion, the Clerk is hereby ordered to strike the document erroneously filed as a “Proof of Service,” on 5/13/26 (ROA 10).

6. 2025-1529605 Newport No tentative. Medical Solutions vs. Orthopedic Institute of Newport Beach 7. 2026-1578614 At the outset, the Court notes that it received via United States State Bar of mail, addressed to the Court by name, an unsolicited ex parte California vs. communication essentially attesting to Respondent John Minnella’s Minnella good character. The Court directed the clerk not to file the unauthorized communication, and the Court did not consider it in ruling on the petition.

The State Bar of California’s Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction over the unauthorized law practice of Respondent John Minnella is granted.

Business and Professions Code section 6125 prohibits a person from practicing law in California unless the person is an active licensee of the State Bar. Giving legal advice and preparing legal instruments, whether or not rendered in the course of litigation, constitutes the practice of law. (State Bar of California v. Superior Court (1929) 207 Cal. 323, 335.) A single such act is sufficient. (People v. Ring (1937) 26 Cal.App.2d Supp. 768, 770–771.)

Business and Professions Code section 6126, subdivision (a), provides in relevant part: “Any person advertising or holding

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