Not stated

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. I) September 1, 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.

applications by plaintiff. One is to allow further briefing on Perales. The court will not allow further briefing at this time. If, at the hearing, it becomes apparent that the court needs more briefing, the matter can be discussed then. That application is DENIED. The second is to allow a supplemental declaration from counsel regarding defense counsel's claim that a letter plaintiff's counsel sent was generated by AI. The court does not believe that it will help to have further briefing on that.

The application is DENIED. The third relates to the McCourt deposition. The court is not sure of the status. The date plaintiff wanted was not convenient to McCourt, but it appeared that McCourt offered alternative dates if the motion for terminating sanctions was not granted. As it turns out, it was neither granted nor denied--it was continued. As such, it is likely that the suggested dates no longer work. However, it appears that McCourt is not objecting to a deposition if the motion is denied, so the court is inclined to have the parties work this out.

For now, the matter is not ripe and the application is DENIED. The fourth is an effort to file the various papers that were before the court last week but for which the court had not seen a request for leave to file them until the morning of the hearing. Plaintiff asks for leave to file it now. That request is DENIED. The court does not believe it will add anything useful to the mix, and filing 10 additional declarations in sur-reply is not proper. In short, all four applications are DENIED. The court will not hear argument on this today.

Case Number: 23SMCV03744 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: I The matter is here for an FSC. It was also here for resolution on a motion that the case should be tried to the court and not a jury, but apparently all parties have agreed to waive jury, so the matter will proceed as a bench trial. The CMC was held on January 9, 2025, and a mediation completion date was set for February 28, 2026. The court has received the following FSC Materials: (1) Witness list suggesting about 15 or so hours of testimony from 5 witnesses; (2) Joint Exhibit List with 108 exhibits; (3) Joint Deposition Chart (with almost all of the depositions designated); (4) Trial Briefs. It appears that the case is READY FOR TRIAL.

The court is currently in trial next week. However, as this might really be 2 or three days of bench trial, the court will discuss timing with the parties.

Case Number: 25SMCV00577 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: I The matter is here on a motion to disqualify defense counsel. The motion is DENIED. The grounds are one attorney representing defendant is her brother and the other is her husband, and that they therefore have a conflict. That is not cause for disqualification. While it is true that the husband might have a financial interest in the outcome of the case, that is not disqualifying (in that it can be waived) and not something that the other side really has standing to raise.

The court has reviewed correspondence in this case, and the court must agree with plaintiff that counsel for the defense does seem to be embroiled in the litigation to the point where communications have not been professional or civil. That needs to stop and stop now. If counsel cannot approach this case as professionals, then it might well be that defendant would be well served to obtain counsel that can. The court has confidence that on a going forward basis, all counsel will engage with one another in a manner consistent with the Los Angeles Superior Court's Guidelines on Civility, appended to the local rules.

However, as stated above, there are no grounds for disqualification and the motion is DENIED. The court is aware that it has the power to disqualify counsel if counsel is so embroiled in the litigation that it threatens the legitimacy of the proceedings. There has been no showing that defense counsel's lack of civility has risen to that level--yet.

Case Number: 25SMCV02730 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: I The motion for leave to amend the answer is GRANTED. Defendant will file the amended answer within 5 court days.

Case Number: 26SMCV01159 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: I The motion was withdrawn by the moving party. There will be no hearing today.

Case Number: 26SMCV01199 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: I Please call the courtroom after 8 am to obtain a copy of the court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 26SMUD00584 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: I The matter is here to be sure that the parties fulfilled their obligations under the settlement agreement. If so, the court expects that there will be a dismissal.

Case Number: SC123117 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: I The court has before it a motion to be relieved, but the court would like to have a hearing with the parties to discuss the Court of Appeal's instructions on remand and whether the parties would like to be heard. | Home -->)" -->