Unknown v. Unknown

vs. Complaint

On 12/04/25, the Court heard and denied Defendant's motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. The Court discussed, at length, the distinction between a complaint and a petition, and clarified that Plaintiff herein has attempted to style his request for relief as a petition, but in substance, it is a complaint. The Court incorporates its 12/04/25 analysis into this ruling by reference.

c. Judgment

Defendant argues no judgment has been entered, and therefore this motion is procedurally improper. Defendant was ordered to submit a proposed judgment of dismissal by 1/28/26. It has not, to date, done so. However, as noted above, on 1/30/26, the Court processed Defendant's proposed order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, which expressly indicated "judgment" was entered in Defendant's favor. The Court therefore finds the 1/30/26 order operates as a judgment of dismissal, such that the lack of a judgment does not preclude consideration of this motion to vacate judgment.

d. Propriety of Using Sec.663 to Attack a Demurrer Ruling

Defendant argues Sec.663 is not the proper vehicle to attack a ruling on demurrer, citing Payne v. Radar (2008) 167 Cal.App.4 th 1569 in support of its position. The Court has read Payne, specifically page 1575, and it clearly holds that a Sec.663 motion does not lie after a ruling sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. The motion is therefore summarily denied as there is no authority presented for the relief sought.

e. Notice

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

motion to compel responses to RPDs, FROGs, and SROGs. The Court deemed the motion moot, imposed sanctions, and provided the parties advice about this hearing as follows:

The Court notes that Defendant has a motion to deem RFAs admitted scheduled for 9/03/26. Plaintiff's opposition addressed this motion also, though it is not before the Court at this time. The Court asks the parties to work together to resolve the issues relating to the motion without the need for a hearing. Plaintiff is admonished that, per Sec.2033.280(c), sanctions are ABSOLUTELY mandatory in connection with a motion to deem RFAs admitted, and there is no good cause or substantial justification carve-out in the statute.

Any opposition to this motion was due on or before 8/21/26. Plaintiff's attorney filed an untimely declaration in opposition to the motion on 8/25/26. To the extent the Court is considering the grossly untimely opposition declaration, it does not change the analysis. Sanctions are absolutely mandatory. There is no provision permitting an exception when Counsel ceases communicating with Client, especially if Counsel has not communicated that breakdown to the other party

when responses to outstanding discovery were due. Counsel asks that the hearing on the motion be continued so Counsel can seek to withdraw. No motion to be relieved has been reserved or filed. The Court will not continue the hearing indefinitely, and it does not appear continuing the hearing would change the ultimate ruling on the motion, as Counsel was responsible for the failure to substantively respond (or, at minimum, communicate with Defendant about problems locating Plaintiff) in a timely manner. The request for a continuance is denied. The Court imposes the requested sanctions of $1010 against Plaintiff and Counsel, jointly and severally. Sanctions must be paid within twenty days. Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25LBCV01830 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: S27

1. Motion for Summary Adjudication

Defendant moves for summary adjudication of the fourth (breach of implied warranty of merchantability) and fifth (fraud - concealment) causes of action in Plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs failed to timely file opposition papers.

Recently, in Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc. (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 478, 508, the Court of Appeals considered a situation where a plaintiff failed to file an opposing separate statement prior to the hearing on the defendant's motion. The Mandell-Brown Court noted, "Thus, if a plaintiff opposing summary judgment fails to file a separate statement, and the trial court reviews the moving papers and concludes the motion is not deficient on its face, it has discretion under subdivision (b)(3) to grant the motion, without first undertaking a detailed analysis of the supporting evidence to determine if a prima facie showing has been made as to one or more of the elements of each claim."

The Court has reviewed the moving papers and finds they are not deficient on their face. In light of the lack of opposition and an opposing separate statement, the Court grants the motion.

Recently, in 24LBCV02791 and myriad other cases, Department S27 has admonished Plaintiffs' attorney as follows: The Court notes that there have been numerous motions for summary judgment and/or adjudication filed by Honda in various cases without opposition. The Court asks Plaintiff's attorney to dismiss any case or cause of action the plaintiff does not intend to pursue. Requiring the Court to rule on unopposed motions is not an efficient use of judicial resources. Despite this admonishment, Plaintiffs have neither dismissed the causes of action nor opposed the motion. Again, the motion is granted.

2. Future Discovery Motions

Defendant has a motion to deem RFAs