Morales et al. v. Nuseed Americas, Inc. et al.

Case: Morales et al. v. Nuseed Americas, Inc. et al. Case No. CV2025-1344 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Department Fourteen 9:00 a.m.

Motion to continue trial:

Plaintiffs Mercedes Morales and Ernestina Rodriguez’s (collectively, “plaintiffs”) unopposed motion to continue trial is GRANTED. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.) The current dates for the trial readiness conference and trial are VACATED. All discovery cut-off dates, and other dates, will be tied to the new trial date.

Parties are DIRECTED TO APPEAR to select a new trial date.

Motion for protective order:

Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for a protective order is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court finds that plaintiffs’ motion fails to provide legal authority to support the issuance of a protective order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b); see Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934, citing Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 52 [where a motion is supported by a deficient memorandum, the trial court is justified in denying the motion on procedural grounds]; see also Hood v. Gonzales (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 57, 73–74, citing Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1050 [every brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made and if none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived and pass it without consideration].)

The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counsel for moving party, or the moving party if unrepresented by counsel, is ordered to notify the opposing party or parties immediately of the tentative ruling system.

If no hearing is requested, and no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

4 of 7