Firas Mina Elias Aldayyat vs. Mercury Insurance Company

Petitioner’s counsel did not respond. (King III Decl., ¶¶ 11- 14; Ex. B.) Petitioner’s reply does not address this email. As stated above, all counsel are ordered to appear for the hearing to discuss the current status of the arbitration and why it has not been scheduled.

5. Firas Mina Elias Aldayyat vs. Mercury Insurance Company 2025-01480905 Before the court is they motion by petitioner Firas Mina Elias Aldayyat (Petitioner) seeking an order compelling the deposition of non-party Robert Moghadam, Esq. (Mr. Moghadam) in connection with Petitioner’s underinsured motorist claim currently pending with respondent Mercury Insurance Company. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1(a).)

Petitioner seeks to compel Mr. Moghadam’s deposition testimony pursuant to a deposition subpoena for personal appearance issued by Petitioner on March 24, 2026. Mr. Moghadam filed an untimely opposition in which he indicated he opposes the motion only to the extent it seeks an unqualified order compelling him to testify without regard to the attorney-client privilege. Petitioner does not appear to be seeking such an order. Petitioner seeks an order directing compliance with the deposition subpoena and even indicated any concerns regarding privilege should be addressed at the deposition by way of objection as to the particular question and content.

Mr. Moghadam does not dispute his testimony pertaining to non-privileged matters is relevant to the pending underinsured motorist claim. Moreover, Mr. Moghadam did not serve any formal objection to the deposition subpoena, nor did he file a motion to quash the subpoena. Mr. Moghadam acknowledges he previously represented Petitioner and Dina Nimri in connection with the underlying automobile accident. He does not dispute he may have knowledge of non-privileged, relevant information. No basis has been established for the outright refusal to appear for deposition.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Mr. Moghadam is ordered to appear for deposition within 30 days of service of notice of this order. Although all parties acknowledge the attorney-client privilege likely will apply to prevent responses to certain questions, the court cannot rule any a prospective privilege objection in a vacuum. Indeed, without a specific question(s) and a factual context, the court cannot rule what specific information is or is not privileged.

Accordingly, Mr. Moghadam may assert objections to particular questions based on the attorney-client privilege at the deposition and any dispute among the parties will have to be resolved through a future motion to the extent they are unable to resolve it through meet-and-confer efforts. Petitioner shall give notice of the deposition date to Dina Nimri. Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

6. Worldwide Credit Co, LLC vs. Wade Kirk 2025-01521959 Based on the acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment in full plaintiff and judgment creditor Worldwide Credit Co, LLC filed on August 31, 2026, the court has not prepared a tentative ruling on the merits. All counsel are ordered to appear for the hearing to address whether the motion to vacate is moot or otherwise has been withdrawn.

7. Squires Lumber Company vs. Mcgee Contracting Inc. 2023-01300636 CONTINUED to September 17, 2026, pursuant to August 31, 2026 Minute Order 8. Walker vs. Shaw 2020-01144299 CONTINUED to be heard in Department C21 on November 6, 2026.

9. LVNV Funding LLC vs. Abrams 2023-01331686 Before the court is the hearing on a claim of exemption presented by judgment debtor J J Abrams (Debtor) and the opposition to claim of exemption filed by judgment creditor LVNV Funding, LLC (Creditor). As set forth more fully below, the claim of exemption beyond the automatic exemption of Code of Civil Procedure section 706.050 is DENIED.

The earnings withholding order served on Debtor’s employer Mesa International Technologies, Inc. and currently in effect with respect to Debtor’s earnings is $1,020.05 per month (or $470.79 every two weeks). The amount of the earnings withholding order is 20 percent of Debtor’s monthly take home pay and reflects the automatic exemption set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 706.050, subdivision (a). Debtor seeks a claim of exemption on the entire amount of the earnings withholding order which he claims is needed to support himself or his family. Under Code of Civil