Unknown v. Unknown
Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction
Motion type
Ruling
(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. O) September 11, 2026 DEPARTMENT O LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
trial preference is denied. Defendant has presented no evidence that Defendant's health "is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 36(a)(2).) The fact that Defendant is 80 years old is not sufficient.
The case relied on by Defendant, Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5 th 529, does not support Defendant's position. Fox merely held that the trial court erred in denying a motion for trial preference where it was undisputed that the 81-year-old plaintiff suffered from stage IV lung cancer and severe coronary disease, among other ailments; was undergoing chemotherapy treatments; was in constant discomfort; had difficulty performing basic life functions; and had a deteriorated mental state that caused her to became confused and forgetful. (Id. at 535.) No remotely similar facts exist here. Moving party to give notice.
Case Number: 22STCV06126 Hearing Date: September 11, 2026 Dept: O
The motions of non-parties 7949 Blackburn LLC and 1229 S. Orange LLC to vacate the amended judgment are granted, without prejudice to Plaintiffs' filing and serving on the LLCs' counsel a new motion to amend the judgment, such motion to be filed and served within thirty (30) days. Moving parties to give notice.
Case Number: 25SMCV05273 Hearing Date: September 11, 2026 Dept: O
Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is granted. Plaintiff has established, by admissible evidence, both a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits and that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in her favor, and Defendants have presented no evidence in opposition. Plaintiff's counsel to give notice. | Home -->)" -->
Cited authorities
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?”