Unknown

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. I) September 9, 2026 DEPARTMENT I LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

being sought now as to the first cause of action (violation under Labor Code section 226.8) and not the second cause of action. As to the 226.8 cause of action, the court agrees that there is no private right of action under the statute. The court is inclined to GRANT the motion WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Case Number: 25SMCV01059 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Dept: I

The court will inquire whether the settlement renders the motion moot. If so, then the court (obviously) will not rule. If the motion remains live, the court will need to discuss timing with the parties because the court has not worked it up.

Case Number: 25SMCV02224 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Dept: I

This is a demurrer in a legal malpractice action. There is no opposition. The thrust of the demurrer is that plaintiff here is suing defendants for malpractice in a criminal action in which plaintiff was convicted. The rule is that absent pleading and proving actual innocence, such an action will not lie. Because of that, the malpractice action is barred. The other causes of action are just other ways of saying "malpractice" and fail for the same reason. Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The lack of an opposition suggests that plaintiff will not, or cannot, allege and prove actual innocence.

Case Number: 25SMCV04948 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Dept: I

This is a demurrer in a construction matter. Defendant makes two arguments. The first is that plaintiff did not plead the contract adequately in that the complete contract was not attached (because the attached document adverted to other things that were pertinent but not attached), quote the precise contractual language defendant is accused of breaching, or set forth the specific legal effect of those contractual provisions.

The operative FAC alleges that in April 2023, the parties agreed that plaintiff would renovate a building in Beverly Hills. A letter of intent was signed to that effect, and that LOI referred to other documents that plaintiff claims included terms of the contract and also referred to plans detailing the work to be performed and the requirements of what plaintiff needed to complete the project. The LOI included the estimated fees plaintiff would charge and required plaintiff to submit progress billings periodically. Defendant was to pay the bills within a reasonable time. In June 2023, defendant allegedly told plaintiff that the renovation would be stopped. Plaintiff claims that in August 2023,