Not stated v. Not stated

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.

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The court notes that the receiver has withdrawn the motion, so there will be no hearing today.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