DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23STCV03131·la·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayGRANTED

iSign International, Inc. Pham

Motion of Plaintiff's Counsel to be Relieved

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
514
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffiSign International, Inc.
Cross-DefendantiSign International, Inc.

Attorneys

Derrick F. Coleman(Coleman Frost, LLP)for Plaintiff

Ruling

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 514) September 1, 2026 DEPARTMENT 514 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Motion of Plaintiff's Counsel to be Relieved Tentative Ruling The motion of Derrick F. Coleman, Esq., and Coleman Frost, LLP to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant iSign International, Inc. is GRANTED. All substantive and procedural requirements are satisfied. The order granting the motion to be relieved is NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL moving counsel files with the Court proof of service of the signed order (not the Minute Order) on the client. Moving counsel is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 24STCV24592 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: 514 Nava v. Guevara 24STCV24592 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Tentative Ruling The motion is DENIED.

On April 23, 2026, the Court ordered Defendants to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $1,400 by May 26, 2026. Defendants have not complied. (Ekekeula Decl., P. 3.) Plaintiff now seeks an order enforcing the prior sanctions order. This request is denied as unnecessary. The Court made an order. Defendants are required by law to comply with it. A new order requiring a party to comply with a prior order adds nothing.

Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions for the failure of Defendants to pay sanctions. The Court, in its discretion, denies this request as well. Plaintiff has an order requiring Defendants to pay sanctions. An order requiring the payment of monetary sanctions is enforceable in the same manner as a judgment. Interest is due on unpaid amounts at the legal rate. Where, as here, there is no showing that the Defendants have failed to provide information, documents, or testimony as required under the Civil Discovery Act, and there is no showing of prejudice to Plaintiff in connection with preparing for trial, the Court declines to impose a further monetary sanction at this time. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25STCV03782 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: 514 Murphy v. Last Mile Tech, LLC 25STCV03782 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Answer of Defendant Last Mile Tech, LLC Tentative Ruling

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