Motion for trial preference
sale of the vehicle to CarParc, while the vehicle was still in CarParc’s possession in California. (Id. at ¶ 8.) This action arises directly from that sale. The circumstances here thus demonstrate that CMC purposefully availed itself of this forum, and materially differ from those in Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1254.
The burden thus shifts to CMC to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. It has failed to meet that burden here. The Motion to Quash is therefore DENIED.
CMC’s Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.
Plaintiff is to give notice of this ruling.
302 Klaas vs. Lyft, Plaintiff Adrienne Klaas’ motion for trial preference Inc. is GRANTED.
Plaintiff has a substantial interest in the action and has produced sufficient evidence to show she is over 70 years of age and her health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 36, subd. (a)(1)-(2); Declaration of Adrienne Klaas ¶¶ 3-9, Exs. A-E.)
The court advances trial from 1/25/27 to 9/14/26 at 9:30am in Dept. C24.
Parties shall appear as to the status conference.
Plaintiff shall give notice.
303 City of Ontario Before the court is a Motion to Augment the vs. Inland Administrative Record (Motion) filed by respondent Empire Utilities Inland Empire Utilities Agency (Respondent). The Agency Motion is GRANTED.
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?”