Motion to Compel Arbitration
However, the court has yet to grant Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint. Rather, the court continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to file a First Amended Complaint to July 27, 2026. (See ROA #246.)
Therefore, there is no need for Plaintiff to file an amended answer at this time.
If Plaintiff is granted leave to file a first amended complaint, Defendant will have the right at that time to file an answer to the new operative pleading.
Further, pursuant California Rules of Court rule 3.1324, a motion to amend a pleading must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)
The motion for leave to amend is procedurally defective in that it does not include a copy of the proposed amended answer and does not state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added to the original Answer.
The court notes that Defendant filed an unauthorized answer (ROA # 235) to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (which has not been filed). The court, on its own motion, strikes the unauthorized answer.
The court will deny the motion to amend.
Plaintiff shall give notice of these rulings.
7 Sahel Oncology LLC vs. Blank Motion to Compel Arbitration Rome LLP There is no full written tentative ruling at this time. The court will hear from the parties or their 30-2025-01518179 counsel, who should be ready to address the issue
of whether an evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate.
8 Ascencio vs. Akbarzadeh There is no full written tentative ruling at this time. The court provides the following summary tentative ruling: 30-2023-01362017 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel
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?”
Counsel Lili Jalali, Esq.’s Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel – Civil for Defendant Aidin Akbarzadeh is DENIED without prejudice.
This court previously continued the hearing in this matter to allow Counsel Lili Jalali, Esq. (Counsel) to supplement the previous declaration, which was deficient in that no facts were provided showing that address where Defendant Akbarzadeh was served was his current address, or his last known address and Counsel has not been able to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days prior to filing the motion.
Counsel did not file a supplemental declaration until the court day before this hearing and the supplemental declaration does not address the deficiencies.
The court will deny the motion without prejudice to Counsel refiling the motion when Counsel is able to comply with all the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code and Rules of Court.
The court clerk shall give notice of this ruling.
9 Dilawari vs. California Petition for Writ of Mandate Department of Motor Vehicles There is no full written tentative ruling at this time. The court will hear from the parties or their counsel. 30-2025-01536742