| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default
established in this Court’s mind to warrant release or reduction of the withheld funds at this time.
Trinity’s request for attorney fees is denied without prejudice as premature.
Plaintiff Armstrong to give notice.
5. Palacios vs. FCA US, LLC.
25-01464074
Motion to Compel Production
Plaintiff Yereli Palacios’ Motion to Compel Compliance with CCP § 871.26(h) is CONTINUED to August 7, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department C12.
Prior to filing a discovery motion, a “meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040(a).)
Here, Plaintiff failed to meet and confer prior to filing the motion. Therefore, the hearing is continued to allow the parties to engage in a meaningful meet and confer. The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s position that no meet and confer is required in this context.
The parties/counsel are ORDERED to engage in additional attempts to meet and confer in person, telephonically, or over remote videoconferences (not email) by June 26, 2026.
The parties/counsel are ORDERED to file a JOINT STATUS REPORT indicating whether court intervention remains the only option to resolve this discovery dispute, and if so, why. This Joint Status Report shall be filed by July 24, 2026.
Clerk to give notice of this ruling.
6. Rodriguez vs. Melo
25-01470408
Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default
Defendant Manuel Rivera Melo’s motion to set aside default and/or default judgment pursuant to CCP section 473.5 is CONTINUED to July 10, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department C12.
At this time, there is no proof of service of the moving papers (i.e., the notice of motion and motion, memorandum of points and authorities, declaration, and all other supporting papers) on plaintiffs Virginia
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Rodriguez and Pablo Rodriguez’s counsel of record at Glotzer & Leib LLP.
The moving papers must be served on all parties who have appeared in the action. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005, subd. (b) [“all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing”], 1015 [where a party has appeared in the action or proceeding through an attorney, “the service of papers, when required, must be upon the attorney instead of the party, except service of subpoenas, of writs, and other process issued in the suit, and of papers to bring the party into contempt”]; see also Edward W. v. Lamkins (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 516, 529 [fundamentals of due process require notice and an opportunity to be heard].) “Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c).)
Defendant is ORDERED to do the following by no later than Friday June 5, 2026, at 4:00 p.m.:
(1) serve all moving papers on plaintiffs’ counsel; and
(2) file a proof of service of the moving papers with the court (see, e.g., Judicial Counsel of California Form POS-040 or POS-050 [proof of service forms approved for optional use]).
The Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Default Judgment) scheduled for June 11, 2026, is DISCHARGED and that hearing will go off calendar.
This motion is CONTINUED to July 10, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department C12. The Court will also schedule a Case Management Conference on that same date and time.
Clerk shall give notice.
7. Xu vs. EQUITATION ROYALE LLC
25-01535570
Motion Permitting Service of Summons and First Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs John Kim and Christine Ting Xu’s motion to effectuate the service of the summons and amended complaint via the California Secretary of State as to defendants Airlink Global LLC and Equitation Royale LLC is granted.
Plaintiffs have demonstrated “reasonable diligence” by “set[ting] forth facts detailing all attempts to serve the defendant by each of the