DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
7·orange·Civil·Contract
Hearing in about 5 hoursGRANTED

Josh Zwagil as trustee for the JZ Marketing Holdings Irrevocable Trust Dated May 29, 2018 vs. Capstone Financial Partners, LLC

Motion to dismiss

Hearing date
Sep 9, 2026
Department
N16
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJosh Zwagil
DefendantCapstone Financial Partners, LLC
DefendantTracy Grove

Ruling

Here, Defendant argues that the court should essentially strike all costs or, alternatively, $973.85 in costs. According to Defendant, Plaintiffs’ costs are without merit, are unreasonable, unsupported, and/or unnecessary. Specifically, Defendant objects to costs related to electronic fees, service of process fees, filing fees and jury fees.

Defendant in its moving papers, however, completely ignores that Plaintiff has a broader and more expansive avenue of recovering costs than section 1033.5. Defendant’s arguments are based on the standard set forth in section 1033.5 and not section 1794. Specifically, Defendant argues that costs are not recoverable because the costs are not reasonably necessary for the conduct of litigation. The correct standard here is civil code 1794, which contemplates a broader recovery for costs and expenses for consumers than those statutorily allowed.

The court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ cost items and finds that Plaintiffs’ requests for costs related to electronic fees, service of process fees, filing fees and jury fees, to which Defendant objects, are reasonable and awardable under section 1794 and/or 1033.5.

As such, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiff is awarded $2,110.03 in costs.

Plaintiff to give notice.

7 Josh Zwagil as TENTATIVE RULING: trustee for the JZ Marketing For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Tracy Grove’s motion to Holdings dismiss, with prejudice, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint as to Irrevocable Trust Dated her is GRANTED. The dismissal without prejudice entered on May 29, 2018 August 26, 2026, is VACATED. vs. Capstone Financial Defendant’s request for judicial notice of Exhibits 1 through 4 is Partners, LLC GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

Defendant moves for an order dismissing, with prejudice, the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) as to her pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f).

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2), the Court may dismiss an action as to a defendant after a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend and the plaintiff fails to amend within the time allowed.

When a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, the plaintiff retains the right to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice only until the time to amend expires. (Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 781, 789; Parsons v. Umansky (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 867.)

A plaintiff’s right to voluntarily dismiss is also terminated once a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, even if judgment has not yet been entered. (Gutkin v. University of Southern California (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 967, 974.)

Here, on March 4, 2026, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action with leave to amend and sustained the demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action without leave to amend. (RJN, Ex. 3.) Plaintiffs’ deadline to file a Second Amended Complaint was subsequently extended to May 7, 2026. (RJN, Ex. 4.) Plaintiffs did not amend by that deadline. Defendant thereafter filed the present motion to dismiss on May 15, 2026.

On August 26, 2026, more than three months after the amendment deadline expired, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal of Defendant without prejudice, which the clerk entered. By that time, however, Plaintiffs’ right to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice had already terminated.

Accordingly, the dismissal without prejudice entered on August 26, 2026, is VACATED, and Defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice is GRANTED.

Defendant to give notice.

8 LCY OFF CALENDAR Partnership vs. Rainbow Auto Collision, Inc. 9 Rose vs. 1 CONTINUED TO 12/16/26

10 Murillo vs. Ultra TENTATIVE RULING: Personnel, LLC Defendants Ultra Personnel, LLC, and INX Prints, Inc. move for summary judgment on the Complaint of Plaintiff Irma Murillo, or in the alternative, summary adjudication on each cause of action therein. For the following reasons, the unopposed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share