Not stated

issue for the Court to resolve in the wake of the template-based meet and confer efforts that the Court is directing.

motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's claims in this action. The action is stayed pending the completion of the arbitration. The Court will explain the basis for this ruling at the hearing on Defendant's motion today.

Case Number: 26STCV09564 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 517 Pending before the Court is the Defendants' demurrer to the Plaintiff's initial Complaint. The Court is overruling the demurrer on mootness grounds. The initial Complaint is no longer the Plaintiff's operative pleading. It was superseded by the filing of a First Amended Complaint ("the FAC") on March 26, 2026.

Defendants filed their demurrer to the initial Complaint more than a month later, on April 29, 2026. Defendants explain in their reply brief that they demurred to the initial Complaint because they were not served with the FAC and thus were unaware of its existence until Plaintiff referenced it in the opposition to the demurrer. Be that as it may, the demurrer before the Court today has been rendered moot by the filing of the FAC. If Plaintiff has yet to serve the FAC on Defendants, it obviously must do so.

The Court is advancing to today the case management conference that is set for October 5, 2026 and continuing it to December 8, 2026 at 8:30. If Defendants decide to demur to the FAC, they may reserve December 8, 2026 as the hearing date for it. If Defendants are able to secure an earlier hearing date for the demurrer, that is fine with the Court.

Case Number: BC701615 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 517 Pending before the Court is the motion of Defendant Philip Layfield under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.285, subdivision (d)(1) for a determination of the validity of the assertion by Defendants Joseph Barrett and the Barrett Law Firm that certain documents that were disclosed in this litigation are subject to the attorney-client privilege and should be "clawed back." The Court is denying Layfield's motion on the ground that it is untimely. The Court will explain the basis for this ruling at the hearing on the motion today. | Home -->)" -->