DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26STCV08844·la·Civil·Civil Litigation
Hearing todayCONTINUED

Not specified

Demurrer; Motion to compel arbitration

Hearing date
Aug 31, 2026
Department
517
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 8, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

DefendantGeneral Motors LLC
DefendantCulver City Auto Mall

Ruling

The Court is, however, reducing the amount of the sanctions that the Bells sought in their motion. The Bells sought $2,375. This figure reflected four hours of work by the Bells' counsel Kimia Sehati on the opening papers in support of the motion; four hours of anticipated work by Ms. Sehati in reviewing the Donovans' opposition to the motion and preparing a reply to the opposition; and 1.5 hours for Ms. Sehati's attendance at the hearing on the motion - all at Ms. Sehati's hourly billing rate of $250.

Because the Donovans did not, by any stretch, file a full-blown opposition to the motion and the reply brief was correspondingly short as a result, the Court is reducing the amount of sanctions attributable to Ms. Sehati's review of the opposition brief and preparation of the reply brief by 2.5 hours, from 4 hours to 1.5 hours, which comes out to $625. The Court also is reducing the amount of sanctions attributable to Ms. Sehati's attendance at the hearing by 1 hour, from 1.5 hours to.5 hours. All told, the Court is awarding monetary sanctions to the Bells for six hours of Ms.

Sehati's work in connection with the motion at her hourly billing rate of $250, which adds up to $1,500. The Court also is awarding to the Bells costs of $60 reflecting the filing fee they incurred for the motion The total amount of the monetary sanctions the Court is awarding is thus $1,560. The Donovans must pay that amount to the Bells' counsel within 30 days of this order.

on Defendant General Motors LLC's demurrer to the second and third causes of action in Plaintiff's Complaint to September 8. 2026 at 8:30 to meet Defendant Culver City Auto Mall's motion to compel arbitration of the causes of action that Plaintiff has asserted against it in the Complaint. The Court also is moving to September 8 the case management conference that is scheduled for September 18, 2026. | Home -->)" -->

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