DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2022-01271912·orange·Civil·General Civil
Hearing todayDENIED

Lamrabet vs. Cooper

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment

Hearing date
Aug 31, 2026
Department
C11
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$1380$60

Parties

PlaintiffSabah Lamrabet
PlaintiffRita Kwon
DefendantKen Cooper
DefendantCooperstown Chiropractic

Ruling

Defendant to give notice.

4 Hulsey vs. Trofimenko MD

2023-01299440 Motion to Vacate Plaintiff Rickie Hulsey’s motion to vacate the judgment entered on 5/15/25 granting Defendant Vera Trofimenko’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

Plaintiff argues pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 473(d) that the judgment is void because the Court ruled without holding the noticed hearing, no tentative was issued, and no oral argument permitted.

The record contradicts Plaintiff’s arguments.

The hearing on the MSJ took place on 4/28/25. (ROA 394.) All parties were present pursuant to the Minute Order. The motion was also properly noticed; Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ROA 346, 367; See also Farkas Decl., Ex. A.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Defendant shall give notice.

5 Kozbur vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

2025-01476995 Motion to Compel Production

The court will hear from counsel why this motion is not part of the case coordination. 6 Lamrabet vs. Cooper

2022-01271912 Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment

The motion of plaintiff Sabah Lambabet, individually and behalf of minor plaintiff Rita Kwon, for an order setting aside or reconsidering its last decision is DENIED.

Discussion. Self-represented plaintiff Sabah Lambabet, individually and behalf of minor plaintiff Rita Kwon, moves for an order setting aside or reconsidering its last decision. Defendants Ken Cooper and

Cooperstown Chiropractic oppose the motion and ask that plaintiff be deemed a vexatious litigant and be sanctioned $1380, representing the attorneys’ fees incurred in opposing the motion and a filing fee of $60.

Plaintiff has not cited any legal authority and does not specify whether she is referring to the Court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the entry of judgment, or the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Nevertheless, the case has been fully litigated and resolved in favor of defendants.

The clerk will give notice. 7 Mall vs. City of Santa Ana

2024-01372814 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication The court will hear argument. 8 National Funding, Inc. vs. Downtown Partners, Inc.

2026-01539590 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Continued to 11/02/2026 9 Nguyen vs. Thanh

2026-01547251 Motion to Strike - Anti SLAPP

The court will hear argument 10 Nour vs. Al- Khanji

2024-01373153 1. Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record (Zeina Sous) 2. Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record (Mark El Khanji) On the motions of the Law Offices of Mark Martinez, by Mark Martinez, counsel of record for defendants (1) Mark El Khanji and (2) Zeina Sous for orders relieving it as counsel for each of Defendants, the court notes that while everyone now appears to have been served with the motion papers, there is no notice of continuance or proof of service for the current hearing date.

The court will hear from counsel.

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