Cupp v. Adams

7. 25CV08769, Cupp v. Adams

This matter is on calendar for the motion of Defendant Mark Adams to strike the Amended Petition of Petitioner Ronald Cupp on the grounds that all causes of action therein are subject to California’s anti-SLAPP statute (CCP section 425.16) and Petitioner cannot prevail on his claims as a matter of law. On August 19, 2026, this court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the Amended Petition without leave to amend. Accordingly, this motion is dropped as MOOT.

8. 25CV08885, Vargas Flaherty v. Kerston

Plaintiffs Casilda Vargas Flaherty and Christopher Flaherty (“Plaintiffs”) move for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. The motion is made on the grounds that the caption inadvertently omitted three defendant categories. The proposed amendment does not add new parties, causes of action, or substantive allegations. The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file and serve their first amended complaint within 10 days of this order. The court’s minute order shall constitute the order of this court.

9. SCV-270409, Fischer v. Fischer

Defendant Janice Chaney (“Defendant”) moves for an order correcting nunc pro tunc the date of entry of judgment in this action from January 2, 2026, to March 10, 2026. Defendant’s motion is based upon the filing of an Abstract of Judgment on March 10, 2026. The Judgment After Court Trial was entered on January 2, 2026. While Defendant notes that the statement of decision was finalized on March 17, 2026, this does not affect the date of entry of judgment. A statement of decision merely addresses the factual and legal basis for its decision. (Muzquiz v.

City of Emeryville (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1124-1125.) In reply, Defendant objects that the proposed judgment indicates it was filed on December 26, 2025, but then based upon Plaintiff’s counsel’s call to this court, was corrected to indicate it was filed on January 2, 2026. The proposed judgment was inadvertently filed by the court clerk upon its receipt instead of merely lodging it. As it had not yet been signed by a judicial officer, it should not have been filed. Once the clerk’s office learned of the error, it corrected it.

Defendant’s motion is DENIED. The court’s minute order shall constitute the order of the court.

12