Lopez vs. The Fishel Company

TENTATIVE RULINGS 8/27/2026 02:00 PM

100 Lopez vs. The Fishel Company

2023-01305726 Final Accounting

The settlement administrator, ILYM Group, Inc., has confirmed that the distribution of the settlement funds has been completed and made in accordance with the terms of the settlement that were approved by the Court.

As Plaintiff has shown that the administrator’s work is complete, the Court’s file may now be closed.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling to Defendant. 101 Anaheim Chamber of Commerce vs. Anaheim/Orange County Visitor & Convention Bureau

2025-01499697 1. Demurrer to Amended Complaint 2. Case Management Conference Defendant Anaheim/Orange County Visitor & Convention Bureau (“AOCVCB,” “Visit Anaheim,” or “VA”)’s demurrer to portions of Plaintiff Anaheim Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber” or “ACC”)’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 10th cause of action, and WITH LEAVE AS TO THE 3RD, 4TH AND 5TH and 11th causes of action and OVERRULED as to the 1st and 2nd causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc. [CCP], § 430.10, subd. (e).)

As an initial matter, the Court notes that although Defendant’s notice of demurrer states that it is demurring to the 9th cause of action (ROA #74 at p. 1), neither Defendant’s demurrer (id. at p. 3) nor the supporting memorandum of points and authorities (ROA #66) addresses the 9th cause of action. Therefore, the Court treats Defendant’s reference to the 9th cause of action in the notice of demurrer as a typo.

Requests for Judicial Notice Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (ROA #, Exh. A) is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff did not separately file a formal request for judicial notice, but instead attached various records from the Ament criminal case as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s opposition to the instant demurrer. (ROA #88 [Opp.], Exh. B.) Then, in footnote 1 on page 3 of Plaintiff’s Opposition, Plaintiff states that “Plaintiff does not object to Defendant’s request for judicial notice provided that this Court also consider Mr. Ahment’s Motion to Withdraw Plea and Order regarding same, collectively annexed hereto as Exhibit ‘B.’” (Opp. at p. 3, fn. 1.)