RHN Automotive Inc., dba Nissani Bros. Nissan v. Landmark American Insurance Company

deliberate, good-faith litigation choice. It did not result from neglect, inadvertence, or any misconduct by Plaintiffs or their counsel, and it was not intended to delay or obstruct these proceedings." (Olarenshaw Decl., P. 8.) Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss. As Defendants' notice of motion states, they only seek judgment entered in their favor for the first, second, third, and sixth causes of action. However, the statute states that "[t]he court may dismiss the complaint as to that defendant ..." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 581, subd. (f), emphasis added.) The plain language of the statute appears to contemplate that a defendant may dismiss the complaint when all causes of action alleged against the defendant are sustained with or without leave to amend, and the plaintiff does not file an amended complaint. Here, however, one cause of action against FCA still stands, and the singular cause of action alleged against Champion was never demurred to. Accordingly, dismissal as to either defendant would be improper.

FCA's motion also does not cite any case law demonstrating that this statute vests the Court with the power to dismiss individual causes of action, rather than the complaint as a whole or as to a specific party. Given this, Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied because Plaintiffs still have a viable cause of action against both FCA and Champion.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, FCA's motion to dismiss is DENIED. Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this Order. DATED: September 3, 2026 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 508 RHN AUTOMOTIVE INC., dba NISSANI BROS. NISSAN, Plaintiff, vs. LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. | Case No.: |

| Hearing Date:

| September 3, 2026 | Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. ORDER RE: DEFENDANT LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO COMPEL L.A. SECURITY & PATROL INC.'S COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS | Defendant Landmark American Insurance Company ("Defendant") moves for an order enforcing the amended subpoena for business records issued to third-party L.A. Security & Patrol, Inc. on August 14, 2025 and served on August 27, 2025, directing party L.A. Security & Patrol, Inc. to produce all records in its possession and control responsive to the subpoena.

Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions against L.A. Security & Patrol, Inc. in the amount of $3,900. Defendant's motion will be continued to a new date as set forth below. NO HEARING WILL TAKE PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2026. Pursuant to the Court's power to "amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 128, subd. (a)(8)), the Court orders the parties in this case to participate in a meet and confer with the Court ("Informal Discovery Conference" or "IDC").

Lead or other designated counsel for the parties with full authority are ordered to participate in person in an IDC. After consulting with opposing counsel regarding available dates, Defendant must make a prompt reservation for the IDC using the Court's online reservation system. Defendant must file Dept. 508's one-page IDC form in the department seven days prior to the IDC, and the responding parties may file the same form in the department setting forth a response three days prior to the IDC.

Once Defendant confirms an IDC date, Defendant must use the Court's online reservation system to continue the motion to a post-IDC discovery hearing date. The parties are ordered to have with them whatever materials are needed to make the IDC session productive and successful. Prior to the IDC date, lead or other designated counsel for the parties, with full authority, are to meet and confer, in person or via telephone in a further attempt to resolve as many of the issues as possible before the IDC. (See Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.670(f)(2).) If the parties resolve their discovery disputes before the IDC date, Defendant is ordered to take both the IDC and the motion off calendar as soon as possible. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this Order. DATED: September 3, 2026 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior