Garcia v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

such other date and time as may be agreed to in writing by all parties). Moving party is required to provide a link for the deposition to all parties at least 24 hours in advance of the deposition. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff George Mekhjian and his counsel of record Reza Sina, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant (through counsel) in the aggregate amount of $3,394.44 by no later than September 30, 2026. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Defendant's Motion for Order Vacating Sanctions Order Tentative Ruling The motion is denied.

Discussion

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("Metro") moves to vacate the Court's order of June 12, 2026, requiring Metro and its counsel, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Plaintiff. Metro brings this motion under the discretionary relief provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).

In its memorandum, Metro invokes section 473 but then makes two arguments that have nothing to do with relief under that section. Rather than arguing mistake, excusable neglect, or inadvertence, Metro argues that Plaintiff's motion was not filed in good faith and was itself a misuse of the discovery process. The Court finds no merit in these arguments. Contrary to Metro's arguments, there is no requirement under the Civil Discovery Act for counsel to meet and confer before filing the motions that were heard on June 12.

In the declaration of counsel, Ms. Camerlengo details some serious family medical issues that she was required to attend to in March and April, as well as a network disruption that Metro experienced in the same time frame. But counsel has not shown that Metro's failure to respond to the discovery, and Metro's failure to respond to the motion until one day before the hearing, merits discretionary relief under section 473, subdivision (b). Indeed, the facts surrounding Metro's failures were addressed at the hearing on June 12; the Court considered these facts and made the decision to impose the sanctions at issue.

Finally, the Court notes that it does not appear that Metro seeks relief under the mandatory provisions of section 473, subdivision (b). Nor could it, as mandatory relief under section 473, subdivision (b) is not available in response to the imposition of monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act. (See Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 257.) The motion for relief is denied.

Plaintiff's request for further sanctions is also denied. Plaintiff cites no applicable authority in support of the request. Metro's motion is not brought under the Civil Discovery Act, and so the "substantial justification" standard does not apply, and Plaintiff has not satisfied the procedural requirements for a motion under (for example) Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the motion of Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to vacate order of June 12, 2026, imposing sanctions against it and its counsel. Moving Party is to give notice.

Case Number: 25STCV04382 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 514 The request for entry of default judgment submitted on August 19, 2026, is denied without prejudice. The following issues must be addressed before a default judgment can be entered. First, the Doe defendants have not been dismissed. Second, there is not sufficient evidence that Defendant Code is the employer of Defendant Hogans (and thus vicariously liable for the underlying accident). Third, there is not sufficient evidence (such as a declaration from the insureds) setting forth the facts establishing liability and proper identification of Defendants. The Order to Show Cause is continued to November __, 2026, at 8:30 am, in Department 514.

Case Number: 25STCV10086 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 514 Rolon v. Fresh Corn Grill, Inc. 25STCV10086 Defendants' Motion to Strike Tentative Ruling The motion to strike is denied.

Background

On April 4, 2025, Jose Duenas Rolon ("Plaintiff") filed the complaint in this action against Fresh Corn Grill, Inc., Fresher Corn Grill, Inc., Lena Klein, and Does 1 through 100.

On May 5, 2025, Fresher Corn Grill, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against Fresh Corn Grill, Inc. and Lena Klein.

On June 2, 2025, Fresh Corn Grill, Inc. and Lena Klein (collectively "Defendants") filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against Fresher Corn Grill, Inc., Joshua Kleinberg, and Roes 1 through 25.

On February 23, 2026, the Court granted, with leave to amend, Defendants' motion to strike the punitive damages allegations in the complaint.