Unknown

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. I) August 31, 2026 DEPARTMENT I LAW AND MOTION RULINGS If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

absent objection. The exhibit attached to the declaration filed on August 25, 2026, is to be SEALED. Plaintiff will file a new document. The main document will be identical, but it need not include the exhibit. Case Number: 24SMCV06304 Hearing Date: August 31, 2026 Dept: I There is a lot on the calendar today.

Putting status conferences aside, the court sees the following: A request by plaintiff to extend the time to file an amended complaint to August 31, 2026, a motion for a preliminary injunction by plaintiff; a demurrer by Lankarani to the complaint; a motion to quash by plaintiff, a demurrer by plaintiff to Cutler's answer; a motion to strike by plaintiff, and an ex parte application for a stay.

The court turns first to the request to extend the time for plaintiff to file the amended complaint to August 31. That is essentially MOOT. It appears that an amended complaint was filed on August 28, 2026.

Next, the court turns to the request for a preliminary injunction. The court reiterates and incorporates its prior comments regarding prior motions for an injunction. Similar logic applies, and the motion is DENIED.

As to the Lankarani demurrer, the court will SUSTAIN THE DEMURRER WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, but not to add a new cause of action. The court agrees that plaintiff needs to be more particular about this particular defendant's alleged misconduct. If plaintiff wants to add new causes of action, he can seek leave of court. However, in light of the recently amended complaint, the court will inquire as to whether the new complaint essentially moots out the complaint to which Lankarani demurred. If so, then the demurrer will be deemed MOOT, but the court's view remains as to how it would rule if the demurrer is live.

The motion to quash is DENIED. Plaintiff has filed a far-ranging complaint. Given the circumstances, the subpoena is appropriate. The court is not making a finding concerning the contents of the medical records sought, and the court ORDERS any party obtaining those records to keep those records confidential and not to show them to anyone other than: (1) their client; (2) their counsel and counsel's staff; (3) an expert in the case who agrees to abide by this order; and (4) the court by way of a filing under seal.

The demurrer to Cutler's answer is OVERRULED. The thrust of the argument is that the answer does not provide sufficient facts. An