Jerisat vs. Young

# Case Name Tentative 1 Abinante vs. Kunzler Bean & Adamson, PC

2024-01423181 Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories

Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Defendants Kunzler Bean & Adamson, PC and Michael Penley’s Motions to Compel Plaintiff Matthew Abinante, DO’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One are GRANTED.

Defendants served Dr. Abinante with their first set of Special Interrogatories and Request for Production on September 16, 2025. Dr. Abinante failed to provide any responses and has indicated he will not oppose the motions.

Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.020.) Dr. Abinante is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to the outstanding discovery within 20 days of this hearing.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $880 (2 hrs at $220/hr x 2 motions) against Dr. Abinante and his counsel of record. Sanctions to be paid within 30 days.

2 Chao vs. Air Combat USA, Inc.

2022-01258475 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

Off calendar. See minute order dated 5/19/26. 3 City of Fullerton vs. Air Combat USA, Inc.

2026-01548989 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

Off calendar. See minute order dated 5/20/26. 4 Ho vs. Little Saigon Inn

2025-01512937 Demurrer to Complaint

Defendant Little Saigon Inn’s demurrer to the sole cause of action for premises liability brought by Cong Van Ho is sustained with leave to amend. Ho has not alleged sufficient facts showing Saigon owed him a duty to protect him from his alleged injuries. Ho is granted ten days leave to amend.

Defendant Saigon to give notice.

5 Jerisat vs. Young

Motion for Reclassification

2025-01476022 Defendant Steven Young’s motion for reclassification of this action as limited jurisdiction is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc. §403.040, subd. (b)(1).) Defendant has not sufficiently shown that the case is incorrectly classified as an unlimited civil case. “A party seeking to reclassify a case from unlimited to limited faces a ‘high threshold’” (Hiona v. Superior Court (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 866, 872 [citing Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278].) There must be a finding “that the verdict will ‘necessarily’ fall short of the superior court jurisdictional requirement”. (Id. [citing Walker v.

Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 270.) The focus of the inquiry is not on the likelihood of the plaintiff obtaining a judgment in excess of the jurisdictional threshold; rather, the question is whether it is possible that the plaintiff could obtain “a jurisdictionally appropriate verdict.”(Id. [citing Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 402.)

Defendant’s motion argues that reclassification is warranted because it is not “plausible” that Plaintiff’s claims will result in a verdict that exceeds the jurisdictional threshold for civil unlimited. This is not the correct standard to apply in determining whether reclassification is warranted. Plaintiff alleges he is owed $28,275.20 for costs and expert fees he allegedly incurred in the representation. (See FAC ¶¶19-20). Moreover, Plaintiff alleges he is owed the reasonable value of the legal services he provided to Paquin. Additionally, the FAC includes a cause of action for fraud with a prayer for punitive damages. Defendant’s evidentiary showing in support of the motion does not establish as a legal certainty that Plaintiff’s potential recovery will not exceed the jurisdictional threshold of $35,000.

Defendant shall provide notice.

7 Libertucci vs. Cooper

2023-01370576 Motion for Sanctions

No tentative. 8 Murchison Consulting, Inc. vs. Bloomstone

2025-01458900 Default Prove Up

Off calendar. See minute order dated 5/21/26. 9 Precision Airparts Support Services, Inc. vs. Clark Defendants’ Motions to Tax Costs on Appeal

Motion to Tax Costs on Appeal (ROA No. 819)