Truong vs. Tran

the settlement agreement and, consequently, default of Cabrera was entered on April 3, 2026. (Id. at ¶ 10.)

The Court finds that the entry of default was due to counsel’s mistake, surprise, and inadvertence. The Motion was timely filed after notice of the default was received. Thus, the Motion to Set Aside Default is GRANTED. Moving party to separately file his proposed answer within 10 days of this order. Moving party to give notice.

107 Truong vs. Tran

21-01237262 Motion for Protective Order Plaintiffs Manh Van Truong and Meiji Truong (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order: 1. Prohibiting Defendant from knowingly publishing materially misleading, manipulated, deceptively edited, or knowingly false excerpts purporting to depict statements made by Plaintiffs concerning matters adjudicated in this action; 2. Prohibiting Defendant from targeting Plaintiffs’ immediate family members through knowingly false or materially misleading publications, or through harassing publications connected to the underlying litigation; 3.

Prohibiting Defendant from knowingly soliciting, coordinating, or encouraging third parties to publish materially misleading, manipulated, or knowingly false content concerning Plaintiffs relating to matters adjudicated in this action; 4. Prohibiting Defendant from knowingly soliciting, coordinating, or encouraging third parties to publish harassing or materially misleading content targeting Plaintiffs’ immediate family members in connection with this litigation; 5. Prohibiting Defendant from harassing or targeting witnesses, counsel, or other individuals associated with this litigation through knowingly false or materially misleading publications concerning their participation in this case; 6.

Prohibiting Defendant from knowingly publishing materially false factual statements accusing the Court, jurors, counsel, or witnesses of corruption, criminal conduct, or misconduct in connection with the proceedings in this action; 7. Awarding sanctions as the Court deems appropriate; and 8. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

Defendant Tien Dung Tran aka Daniel Tran (“Defendant”), proceeding in pro per, opposed the motion. The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Court is unable to reach the merits of this motion because (1) Plaintiffs failed to identify the legal authority pursuant to which Plaintiffs move the Court and (2) Plaintiffs failed to file any evidence in support of their motion. Plaintiffs reference exhibits in the moving papers but such exhibits are not filed with the Court. Every brief should contain a legal argument with citation to authorities on the points made. If none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration.” (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793.)

Additionally, parties “may not enlist the court as their legal assistant to develop arguments they merely suggest.” (Paglia & Associates Construction, Inc. v. Hamilton (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 318, 327.) “It would be unfair for one side to loft an undeveloped legal idea, to rely on the court to work it out, and to leave the opposing party with nothing concreate to tackle in the briefing.” (Ibid. [citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 506, 565 (failing to develop a reasoned argument supported by authority improperly forces the court to decode a bare assertion that the judgment, or part of it, is erroneous)].)

The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs to give notice.

108 Hillsboro Brown Capital, LLC vs. Taft

19-01087702 1) Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens 2) OSC Re: Entry of Judgment Defendant Jorge Burtin’s (“Burtin”) motion to expunge the lis pendens recorded by plaintiff Hillsboro Brown Capital (“HBC”), in Orange County, California on August 27, 2024 (Instrument No. 2024000221196) which relates to property located in Orange County in the City of Costa Mesa, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 139-652-08 is GRANTED.

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §405.30, anyone with an interest in real property may move a court for an order expunging a lis pendens. A court “shall” grant a motion to expunge if either of the following conditions exists: 1. The pleading upon which the lis pendens is based does not contain a real property claim (Code Civ. Proc. §405.31); OR 2. The claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim (Code Civ. Proc. §405.32).