Reynolds vs. Nieves

105 Mutoujackson vs. City of Fullerton Police Department

25-01516622 1. Motion for Leave to Amend 2. Case Management Conference

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is denied for the same reasons as set forth in this Court’s 6/30/2026 ruling in 2025-01479364, RJN Ex.

5. As 2025-01479364 and 2025-01516622 appear to be identical, this Court sets an OSC re: why the 2025-01516622 matter should not be dismissed or why the Court should not strike it sua sponte without leave to amend for October 13, 2026, at 09:30 AM.

Defendant to give notice.

106 Reynolds vs. Nieves

26-01542580 1. Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default 2. Case Management Conference Defendant Jose Cabrera moves to set aside default entered on the Complaint of plaintiffs John Reynolds and Karen Reynolds. When an application for relief from default is made no more than six months after entry, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit that the entry of default was a result of his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, the court shall vacate the resulting default. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 473(b).) Counsel for defendant states that, although he was aware that Defendant had been served, he erroneously believed that co-Defendant Malkiel Nieves would be providing an attorney to represent Defendant in this action. This belief was based on a written settlement agreement between Cabrera and Nieves in which Nieves agreed to defend and indemnify Cabrera from various claims, including the claims asserted in this action. (Sellers Decl. ¶¶7-8.) However, counsel recently reviewed the Register of Actions for this matter and discovered that Nieves did not comply with

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