Not stated v. Not stated

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. I) September 3, 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.

order brought by plaintiff. It is opposed. Earlier in the case, plaintiff had responded to discovery and sat for a deposition. Defendant then served a second round of discovery including 93 special interrogatories, 48 requests for production, another set of form interrogatories, and a request for a second day of deposition. Plaintiff states that this is over the top and abusive. Plaintiff claims that there was a meet and confer effort, but it was not productive. Plaintiff states that some additional discovery is not necessarily unwarranted, but that this is not proper.

The court previously heard this matter and ordered the parties to conduct further meet and confer efforts. No one has filed anything. The court will inquire as to the meet and confer efforts that were made, but it is unlikely that the court will rule today given the lack of supplemental papers regarding the meet and confer. The court is hopeful that this is because the parties have worked out their differences.

Case Number: 25SMCV01867 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: I This is a motion by plaintiff to enforce a settlement. Plaintiff contends that on September 11, 2025, the parties settled. According to plaintiff, defendant then tried to change the terms, but plaintiff did not agree to the changes. Plaintiff says that defendant breached the settlement and plaintiff now seeks an order to enforce it under Section 664.6. The court does not believe that the court can do so. The settlement consists of an exchange of emails.

Under the statute, though, that will not do. There must be an executed agreement. Electronic signatures are enough, but an exchange of emails generally is not. The attached emails have signature blocks, but no actual signature. In J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. V. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, the Court of Appeal discussed this issue. The court concluded that sometimes a printed name or symbol might be enough, but not necessarily. Under the Uniform Electronic Signature Act, the signature must be a sound, symbol, or process adopted by the person to be bound with the intent to sign the electronic record.

It is that intent that this exchange of emails lacks.

Plaintiff, perhaps anticipating this, has sought to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to enforce the agreement. Unlike the instant motion, plaintiff can enforce the settlement agreement under normal contract principles if each element can be proven. That is a different question than 664.6, which has other specific requirements. It might even be that whether or not there is a contract can be determined on summary judgment (one way or the other), although the court is certainly not opining on that now.

The bottom line is that the instant motion must be DENIED, but without prejudice to the pending motion to amend. The court will ask if defendant opposes the motion, and if not, the court can grant the motion for leave to amend today and take the October hearing date off calendar. The court is not telling defendant to concede the point, of course, and if defendant wants to oppose the motion, it certainly may do so and the hearing will remain on calendar.

Case Number: 25SMCV05800 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: I This is a motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff seeks to add a cause of action under LA Municipal Code section 47.12. Defendant opposes, saying that the amendment would be futile, at least as to the broker defendants. LAMC 47.12 is a local ordinance similar to the state rent gouging statute. The difference, according to plaintiff, is that state law applies only to the property owner, whereas the ordinance applies to anyone who aids the owner. And the ordinance has an express private right of action. The fact is that this is better dealt with on demurrer than at the leave to amend stage. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED, and defendant will have 30 days to answer or otherwise respond. This is without prejudice to a demurrer.

Case Number: 26SMCV00232 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: I The court has seen the opposition by defendant. That opposition refers to a case pending before Judge Swift, also apparently involving the garage. Judge Swift seems to have made orders in that case. The court will inquire if that is true and, if it is, why this was not brought to the court's attention at the prior hearing. Assuming no satisfactory response, the court is inclined to DENY the motion in its entirety. This started as a request for a TRO.

A moving party seeking that kind of relief has a duty to full candor to the court. The fact that there is another case pending involving the garage is plainly relevant to this hearing, and by failing to disclose it in the moving papers, the court lacks the confidence that it is getting the full picture from plaintiff. That is not to say that a preliminary injunction will be denied, it is just to say that this needs to be done properly or not at all, and the court needs to know that everyone has given the court all of the information it needs.

Case Number: 26SMCV06642 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: I The court notes that the receiver has withdrawn the motion, so there will be no hearing today. However, before the motion was withdrawn, the court saw that there was a declaration submitted by Gerald Marcil. The court wants to disclose that many years ago (about 20) the court represented Mr. Marcil, and that Mr. Marcil and the court have a mutual close friend. If any party believes that this ought to result in a recusal, the court will discuss it. The court notes that it was not aware of Mr. Marcil's involvement until it was working up the motion. And, in