Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
“Civility allows for zealous representation, reduces clients’ costs, better advances clients’ interests, reduces stress, increases professional satisfaction, and promotes effective conflict resolution. These guidelines foster the civility and professionalism that are hallmarks of the best traditions of the legal profession.” OCBA Civility Guidelines
“The American legal profession exists to help people resolve disputes cheaply, swiftly, fairly, and justly. Incivility between counsel is sand in the gears.” (Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 734, 747.)
TENTATIVE RULINGS Judge Kimberly Knill, Dept. C31
• The court encourages remote appearances to save time, reduce costs, and increase public safety. Go to Check-In Results - Orange County Superior Court and click the blue box, “Click here to appear/check-in for Civil Small Claims/Limited/Unlimited/Complex remote proceedings.” Navigate to Department C31 Judge Kimberly Knill.
• All hearings are open to the public.
• If you desire a transcript of the proceedings, you must provide your court reporter (unless you have a fee waiver and request a court reporter in advance).
• Call the other side. If everyone submits to the tentative ruling, call the clerk at 657-622-5231. Otherwise, the court may rule differently at the hearing. (See Lewis v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 436, 442, fn. 1.)
No filming, broadcasting, photography, or electronic recording of the video session is permitted pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 1.150, and Orange County Superior Court rule 180.
HEARING DATE: Friday, 5/29/2026 10:00 AM
# Case Name Tentative 1 Callahan vs. Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record Anderson 30-2024- No tentative. 01440872-CU- FR-CJC 2 Nasr vs. Sasani Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 30-2025- 01535146-CU- Plaintiff Shadi Nasr’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint CR-CJC is GRANTED.
Defendant opposes the motion on grounds the proposed amended complaint lacks merit and raises allegations which have already been adjudicated by Judge Wersching in Case No. 20D007757.
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?”
However, at this stage the court will allow leave to amend consistent with the liberal policy in favor of amendment.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to file and serve the amended complaint within 5 days.
Clerk to give notice.
3 Oh vs. Chen Motion to Dissolve and Vacate Right to Attach Order 30-2025- and Writ of Attachment 01521231-CU- CL-CJC Defendant, Binbing Chen’s motion to dissolve and vacate right to attach order and writ of attachment is OFF CALENDAR.
Defendant is currently defaulted and cannot take affirmative steps in the litigation until default has been set aside. (See Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385.)
Clerk to give notice.
4 Lopez vs. Kia Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings America, Inc. 30-2025- Defendant Kia America, Inc.’s (Kia) Motion for Judgment on 01456189-CU- the Pleadings is GRANTED with 10 days leave to amend. BC-CJC Second cause of action for implied warranty
Kia moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability on the ground it is time-barred. “The statute of limitations for breaches of the implied warranty of merchantability is four years.” (Montoya v. Ford Motor Co. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 493, 495 [citation omitted].)
The Song-Beverly Act provides the duration of the implied warranty of merchantability may extend to a period of not more than one year after purchase when accompanied by an express warranty of future performance spanning one year or longer. (Civ. Code, § 1791.1, subd. (c).)
A claim for breach of implied warranty is not barred by the consumer’s failure to report the defect within one year, as “[t]he implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.” (Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1305.) “There is nothing that suggests a requirement that the purchaser discover and report to the