Motion for relief from default
All counsel and self-represented parties appearing remotely must check-in online through the court’s civil video appearance website at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) before the designated hearing time. Once the online check-in is completed, participants will be prompted to join the courtroom’s Zoom hearing session. Participants will initially be directed to a virtual waiting room pending the start of their specific video hearing. Check-in instructions and instructional video are available at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) The Court’s “Appearance Procedures and Information--Civil Unlimited and Complex” and “Guidelines for Remote Appearances” also are available at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) Those procedures and guidelines will be strictly enforced.
Public Access: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings. Members of the media or public may obtain access to law and motion hearings in this department by either coming to the department at the designated hearing time or contacting the courtroom clerk at (657) 622-5618 to obtain login information. For remote appearances by the media or public, please contact the courtroom clerk 24 hours in advance so as not to interrupt the hearings.
NO FILMING, BROADCASTING, PHOTOGRAPHY, OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING IS PERMITTED OF THE VIDEO SESSION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 1.150 AND ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULE 180.
# Case Name Tentative
1. 2025-1489617 Masaoka vs. Case Management Conference/ Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal ALHV, LLC 3. 2024-1395904 The motion of Brown, Koro & Romag, LLP, counsel of record for Ploski vs. Plaintiff Hunter Ploski, to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff is Castro granted.
The court will interlineate the new trial date into the proposed order and delete references to the prior date and will signed the amended order.
Upon the signing of the order, counsel shall serve the signed order on Plaintiff and all parties that have appeared. Counsel will be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon Plaintiff and all other parties.
4. 2025-1488642 The motion [ROA #47] of defendant Pacific Dealer Center, Inc. for Swannie vs. relief from the default entered against it in this action is continued Swannie to July 15, 2026, at 10AM, for Pacific Dealer Center to file and serve
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?”
an errata with the Declaration of Mark Swannie referred to and relied on within the motion and supporting memorandum but not actually attached.
5. 2026-1537551 Defendants Costa Victoria Healthcare, LLC dba Victoria Healthcare Tortorelli vs. and Rehabilitation Center’s, The Ensign Group, Inc.’s, and Ensign Costa Victoria Services, Inc.’s demurrer to Plaintiff Michelle Tortorelli’s Complaint Healthcare is overruled. LLC A demurrer presents an issue of law regarding the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in the complaint. (Lambert v. Carneghi (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1126.) The challenge is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) or from matters outside the pleading which are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code §§ 451 or 452.
Although California courts take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints, it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defendant of what plaintiff is complaining, and what remedies are being sought. (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 413.) On demurrer, a complaint must be liberally construed. (CCP § 452; Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) All material facts properly pleaded, and reasonable inferences, must be accepted as true. (Aubry v.
Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-67.)
2nd cause of action for willful misconduct
To establish willful misconduct, a plaintiff must prove the basic elements of a negligence cause of action—duty, breach of duty, causation, and damage—as well as the following additional elements that raise the negligent actors’ acts or omissions above a basic want of ordinary care: (1) actual or constructive knowledge of the peril, (2) actual or constructive knowledge that injury is a probable, as opposed to a possible, result of the danger, and (3) conscious failure to act to avoid the peril. (Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Assn., Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1140.)
Defendants argue that California law does not recognize an independent cause of action for willful misconduct, but rather finds that willful misconduct is “an aggravated form of negligence,” relying on the case of Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 526.
This case that Defendants rely on do not actually stand for the idea that a demurrer can be sustained on the sole grounds that willful misconduct is a species of negligence and not a separate tort. Rather, in Berkley the court analyzed the pleading requirements of