Daniels vs. Lennar Homes of California, Inc

as “lengthy.” Because the notice is Court-ordered, there is a risk the use of these descriptions could be considered an official endorsement by the Court.

8. Does notice need to be given in any languages other than English?

9. Please include opt-out and workweek dispute forms (but not an objection form) with the notice.

10. If any changes are made to the settlement agreement, please make corresponding changes to the notice.

11. The font size in the actual notice may not be smaller than the font size in the proposed notice provided to the Court.

14 Daniels vs. Lennar Homes of California, Inc

2026-01547354

Sultana S. Kelantan’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record Case Management Conference

Attorney Sultana Kelantan’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Eian Daniels is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. CRC 3.1362 requires that a motion to be relieved as counsel be filed on Judicial Council form MC-051, supported by a declaration on form MC-052, and accompanied by a proposed order on from MC-053. Counsel has filed only a motion on form MC-051. There is neither a supporting declaration nor a proposed order on the record. The letter and FedEx receipt attached to the motion are inadmissible, as they are not authenticated under penalty of perjury. Attorney Kelantan may refile the motion with proper supporting papers in compliance with the Rules of Court.

The Court hereby takes notice that the following case is related to the above-entitled matter: Daniels v. Lennar Homes of California, Inc., No. 2024-01422730.

This case is ordered removed from the inventory of the Honorable William D. Claster in Department CX101 and reassigned to the inventory of the Honorable Craig L. Griffin in Department N17 for all purposes.

The Court determines that for purposes of exercising CCP § 170.6 rights, there are two sides to this matter unless the contrary is

brought to the attention of the Court by ex parte motion. Counsel has 15 days from the date of the enclosed certificate of mailing in which to exercise any rights under CCP § 170.6.

10:00 AM 15 Sandoval vs. Riverside County

CVRI2502556

Defendant’s Demurrer to Amended Complaint The Court previously issued a tentative ruling (ROA 370) that proposed overruling Riverside Superior Court’s (RSC) and Does 1- 100’s demurrer in its entirety. At the hearing, RSC advanced new arguments about judicial immunity that weren’t fully briefed in the moving papers. The Court continued the hearing on the demurrer and ordered supplemental briefing on judicial immunity.

For the reasons set forth below, the demurrer is OVERRULED. However, given the state of judicial immunity case law in California, all parties should be aware that the Court will not consider injunctive relief against RSC or Does 1-100 on the present record, only declaratory relief.

Defendant RSC shall file its answer by June 12, 2026.

GROUNDS FOR RULING

I. Prior Tentative Ruling

The Court incorporates the prior tentative ruling by reference. The only live issue for purposes of the present ruling is judicial immunity.

II. Judicial Immunity

RSC and Does 1-100 (the individual judicial officers of RSC) contend they are immune from suit under California law.

“California’s courts have had little to say in published opinions about the reach of judicial immunity.” (Mahler v. Judicial Council of California (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 82, 109.) Accordingly, California follows the view of the federal courts on the scope of judicial immunity. (Id., at p. 110.) At the time Mahler was decided,