Daimler Truck Financial Services USA LLC vs. Expercarriers Inc.

Motion to Seal.

Defendant Healthy Campus, LLC’s motion to seal Ex. 3 to its request for judicial notice is DENIED. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 2.550, 2.551 [sealing requirements / findings].) Moving party fails to show why the entire document should be sealed. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 2.550, subd. (d)(4) [proposed sealing must be “narrowly tailored”], 2.551, subd. (a) [“The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties”]; H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894 [moving party must present “specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them”].)

************************

3 Daimler Truck Financial Services USA LLC vs. Expercarriers Inc.

2022-01280524

Motion for New Trial

***Parties were ordered to have a court reporter present***

Defendant Christopher Sawicki’s Motion for New Trial is DENIED.

The Court notes that no Opposition was filed by Plaintiff and no Reply was filed by Defendant Sawicki.

Moving Party was in court on November 3, 2025, when Plaintiff answered ready. Moving Party indicated that he needed a continuance due to a recent medical issue. The Court continued the matter. The Court inquired of both sides as to a mutually acceptable date for the continued trial and December 15, 2025 was agreed upon.

On December 15, 2025, Moving Party and

Plaintiff both proceeded to trial. Moving Party made no mention of a continuance request nor that he could not go forward for any reason.

To the contrary, Moving Party fully engaged in the proceedings, giving an opening statement, cross-examining the opposing witness, testifying himself and giving a closing statement.

Moving Party never stated that he could not proceed or needed a continuance of the trial. After the Court ruled against the Moving Party at the conclusion of the trial, the Moving Party waited over two months to file this Motion based on health issues or concerns that were not presented to the Court on December 15, 2025.

Accordingly, the motion is denied. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a Proposed Judgment no later than June 12, 2026.

Clerk is ordered to give notice

5 Hill vs. City of Fountain Valley

2024-01386471

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Defendants City of Fountain Valley, James Cataline, Stuart Chase, and Gannon Kelly’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

As an initial matter, Moving Defendants’ separate statement in support of the motion does not comply with the requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350, subd. (d)(3), which requires that “[t]he statement must state in numerical sequence the undisputed material facts in the first column followed by the evidence that establishes those undisputed facts in that same column. Citation to the evidence in support of each material fact must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.” Here, Moving Defendants have failed to include any