LOYST v. DMV

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES

Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

No. 24CV03262

FLORES v. LOPEZ, et al.

PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE OF CLAIM

The terms of the settlement appearing reasonable, the petition for approval of compromise of the disabled person’s claims (L. Flores) is granted. The Court will sign the order submitted by counsel.

No. 26CV02387

LOYST v. DMV

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

The parties are ordered to appear. Respondent shall be prepared to explain the apparent incomplete administrative record it lodged. All that is included in the record are four pages of indecipherable DMV printouts and the police report from the night of petitioner’s arrest. Obvious from the petition, there are other records not included that should be. (See Petition, ¶¶ 17, 18; Declaration of John Crowley, Exhibits A, D, E, F, H, I.)

The suspension of petitioner’s license, effective July 28, 2026, remains stayed.