Connectcomp, Inc. vs. Armstrong Supply Chains Solutions, LLC
Motion to Compel Arbitration; Case Management Conference
Motion type
Parties
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.
2025-01509812 Continued to Friday, 8/28/26, at 8:30 a.m.
Cited authorities
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?”