Supplement Advisory, Inc. vs. Robinson Manufacturing, Inc.

some recognized or cognizable legal theories that are related to subjects and requests for relief that are properly before the court.”’ [Citation.]” (Lee, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 546.)

Here, Petitioner has failed to establish declaratory relief is appropriate in this case. Petitioner has not joined any party as a defendant in this case with whom he has a controversy, and he has not established the existence of any actual, present controversy relating to his rights and duties and the rights and duties of any other party.

Petitioner asks this court to declare the records of another state and county are inaccurate in that they fail to set forth the correct birthname of Petitioner’s alleged ancestors. The records at the heart of Petitioner’s claim, and the records from which many others derive, are from Indiana. Petitioner has not set forth any authority authorizing this court to declare Indiana records inaccurate. Indeed, Petitioner does not rely on any records from Orange County.

A controversy requires two parties, but Petitioner is seeking a declaration without joining another party with whom he has a controversy. At a minimum, it would appear some official from the jurisdiction where the allegedly inaccurate records were issued would need to be named in this case, and Petitioner may need to go to that jurisdiction to obtain the requested relief. In short, Petitioner has failed to establish he has brought this action in the proper court and joined all necessary parties.

As noted at a prior hearing, the court acknowledges the purported order from the San Diego County Superior Court from February 2018, which allegedly grants the sort of relief Petitioner seeks here. An order or ruling from another trial court, however, may not be cited and does not constitute authority of any sort in other unrelated trial court proceedings. Moreover, there is no evidence presented to show the facts in that case are in any way comparable to the facts of this case.

Based on the foregoing, the petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The clerk is directed to give notice of this ruling.

6. Supplement Advisory, Inc. vs. Robinson Manufacturing, Inc. 2025-01519709

Before the court is the petition by petitioner Supplement Advisory, Inc., dba The Mewes Group (Petitioner) in which it seeks to confirm a Final Arbitration Award, dated July 15, 2025, by Judge Kirk Nakamura (Ret.) at JAMS in favor of Petitioner and against respondent Robinson Manufacturing, Inc. (Respondent). As more fully set forth below, the Petition is GRANTED.

This case arises from a contract between Petitioner and Respondent whereby Respondent agreed to pay Petitioner a percentage of an Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERC) received by Respondent. On July 15, 2025, Judge Kirk Nakamura (Ret.), issued a Final Award of $92,486.97 plus costs in the amount of $15,876.40 in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent.