Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC vs. Gunner Concrete, Inc.

implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the warranty and implied warranty.

The court finds that Plaintiff’s claims against MBUSA entirely arise out of and relate to the warranty for the Vehicle, and the relationship between the parties as lessee and warrantor.

Contract of Adhesion

Finally, Plaintiff contends that the arbitration provision in the Agreement is a contract of adhesion. However, Plaintiff provides no evidence in support of this assertion.

Furthermore, the fact of an adhesion contract alone does not render the arbitration clause unenforceable. Procedural and substantive unconscionability “must both be present in order for a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce a contract or clause under the doctrine of unconscionability.” (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Servs., Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114).

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

The court will STAY this action pending resolution of the parties’ arbitration. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

The court sets an ADR Review Hearing for March 2, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this Department.

Defendant MBUSA shall give notice.

4 Anderson vs. OFF CALENDAR Tan 5 Cemex TENTATIVE RULING: Construction Materials Motion to Continue Judgment Debtor Examination Pacific, LLC vs. Gunner Concrete, Inc. Judgment Debtor Gunner Concrete, Inc. moves to continue the judgment debtor examination set for June 26, 2026. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

First, the motion is moot. Gunner Concrete, Inc. moves to continue the judgment debtor examination that was set for June 26, 2026, to July or August 2026. However, that date has passed, and the motion is thus moot.

Further, the motion is not supported by a properly executed declaration because the declaration attached to the motion is not

dated. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2015.5 [requiring that a declaration state the date of execution to be valid].) Here, the declaration of Geneva Milne states, “Executed this DAY day of MONTH, 2026.” (ROA 442.)

The Court Clerk shall give notice of this ruling.

6 Fine Consulting TENTATIVE RULING: Services, Inc. vs. Alvarez For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff Fine Consulting Services, Inc.’s (“FCS”) motion for sanctions against Defendant Search Fund Accelerator, LLC (“SFA”), under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 is DENIED.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant SFA’s motion to disqualify counsel Katie Charleston as trial counsel under the advocate-witness doctrine lacked evidentiary support, was not warranted by existing law or any good faith argument, and was presented for an improper purpose, including to harass, cause delay, increase litigation costs, and gain tactical advantage following mistrial.

Motion for Sanctions Under Section 128.7

Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 authorizes a court to impose sanctions on a party or attorney that presents a pleading, petition, motion, or other similar papers in the following circumstances:

1) the document is presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. 2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law. 3) the allegations and other factual contentions have no evidentiary support. 4) the denials of factual contentions are not warranted on the evidence.

Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 permits the Court to impose monetary sanctions on an attorney or an unrepresented party that violates any one of these requirements. (Eichenbaum v. Alon (2003) 106 Cal App 4th 967, 976.) In addition, section 128.7 does not require a finding of subjective bad faith; instead, it requires only that the Court