DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2020-01159013·orange·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayContinued to Friday, 8/28/26, at 8:30 a.m.

Avery vs. Barandiaran

Motion for Entry of Judgment

Hearing date
Aug 27, 2026
Department
C44
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 28, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffAvery
DefendantBarandiaran

Ruling

# Case Name Tentative 1 Alvarez vs. Sandoval

2025-01479344 Motion to Compel Arbitration

Vacated. See minute order dated 8/25/26. 2 Avery vs. Barandiaran

2020-01159013 Motion for Entry of Judgment

Continued to Friday, 8/28/26, at 8:30 a.m. 3 Chambliss vs. General Motors, LLC.

2024-01445277 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Defendant General Motors, LLC’s (GM) motion for summary judgment as to the complaint of Otis Chambliss is GRANTED in its entirety.

There is no opposition to the motion.

GM has met its initial burden showing Chambliss does not have standing to prosecute this action under the Song-Beverly Act. See C.C.P. § 437c (p) (2), and Hunter v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1287.

The names on the complaint and the Sales Agreement are different. Further the car was undisputedly purchased in the state of Missouri. See Complaint ¶ 6; Declaration of Xylon Quezada (“Quezada Decl.”) at ¶ 3, Exhibit B (Retail Installment Sales Contract); Jensen Decl., at ¶ 5, Quezada Decl. at ¶ 5, Exhibit C (Certified Copy of Videoconference Deposition Transcript of Otis Chambliss Jr. conducted on January 12, 2026 p. 16:1-4 & p. 44:1-6.)

As Chambliss has not opposed this motion, he has not met his now shifted burden raising a triable issues of fact with regard to the issues above.

Defendant GM to file a proposed judgment.

Defendant GM to give notice.

4 Clark vs. Othman

2025-01504059 Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default

Vacated. See minute orders dated 8/24/26.

5 Connectcomp, Inc. vs. Armstrong Supply Chains Solutions, LLC

1. Motion to Compel Arbitration 2. Case Management Conference

Continued to Friday, 8/28/26, at 8:30 a.m.

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