DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CVRI2602070·riverside·Civil·Motion to be relieved as counsel
Hearing todayDENIED / No motion required

LLOYD VS MENDELBAUM, TRUSTEE OF THE NILI MANDELBAUM TRUST

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR FREDERICK J. LLOYD

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
6
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffFrederick Lloyd
DefendantMendelbaum, Trustee of the Nili Mandelbaum Trust

Ruling

The final Assembly Judiciary Committee Report on AB 1755, the enacting legislation for section 871.26, explains that the purpose of the discovery sanctions provision is to ensure “that attorneys faithfully adhere to these new discovery rules,” and “that the information most relevant to a lemon law case is disclosed early in the litigation process and without the need to argue costly discovery disputes before the court.” (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1755 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 30, 2024.) Granting relief from sanctions on these facts would largely frustrate the purpose of section 871.26.

The Court therefore, imposes the mandatory $2,500 monetary sanctions against Defendant’s counsel under section 871.26(j)(2) for the delayed portion of its production. Sanctions are ordered payable within 15 business days from this order

Summary: Deem the motion moot. Award sanctions against Defendant’s counsel in the amount of $2,500 as mandated by section 871.26(j)(1).

3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME LLOYD VS MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS MENDELBAUM, CVRI2602070 COUNSEL FOR FREDERICK J. TRUSTEE OF THE NILI LLOYD MANDELBAUM TRUST Tentative Ruling:

Plaintiff, Frederick Lloyd filed his Complaint on 4/9/2026 in Pro Per. There has been no substitution of counsel filed in this case, therefore, Mr. Lloyd is and remains in Pro Per.

No motion to be relieved or substitution is required.

Plaintiff, Frederick Lloyd is in Pro Per.

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