Motion to Dismiss
company will not complete the transaction because it will not accept a quitclaim deed and instead requires a grant deed. As a result, the transaction contemplated by the Stipulation was not completed under the agreed terms.
California courts strongly favor voluntary settlements and will not set them aside absent a showing of fraud, undue influence, or similar grounds. (Folsom v. Butte County Association of Governments (1982) 32 Cal.3d 668, 676–677.) The Court declines to modify the parties' agreed-upon Stipulation.
The agreed close-of-escrow date of April 30, 2026, has passed. Defendant did not complete the transaction in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff may proceed with enforcement of the Judgment pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation.
The Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Agreement.
The Court Clerk is to notify the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to proceed with the lockout forthwith.
13 30-2025-01533683 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion of Attorney’s Luk vs. Johnson Fees (ROA 26), Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 37), Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 35), Notice of Errata (ROA 39) and Defendant’s Reply to Opposition (ROA 41).
The Court takes Judicial Notice of Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.
The Court has notice of multiple related cases to this dismissed action, including 30-2026-01545106-CU-OR-CJC, the unlimited civil case in which Ms. Johnson is suing the landlord, and 30-2026-01545785-CL-UD-CJC, an active unlawful detainer proceeding between the parties before this Court.
Because this action was voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff before any request to set the matter for trial, and because ruling on the request would require the Court to make factual determinations regarding issues that remain pending in Case No. 30-2026-01545785-CL-UD-CJC, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to award attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1946.2(h)(1)(B).
Further, by Defendant’s own admission, the same damages are being sought concurrently in the unlimited civil action. The Defendant, therefore, has an adequate remedy through the pending unlimited proceeding involving the same parties.
The Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
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?”
14 30-2026-01562021 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ROA Sarena Chan As 25). Trustee Of The Sarena Chan Trust vs. The Court takes Judicial Notice of the entire court docket regarding this Camaruta matter.
Defendants were served with the Summons and Complaint on 4/22/2026 per Proof of Service of Summons (ROA 36 & 40). Defendants filed this Motion to Dismiss (ROA 25) as their first filing with this Court.
A Motion to Dismiss is an improper responsive pleading filed after being served with a complaint in an unlawful detainer action. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1170(a), the Defendant needs to file a motion to quash service of summons, a motion to strike, a demurrer to the complaint, or an answer.
The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
The Defendant is to file a responsive pleading consistent with California Code of Civil Procedure § 1170(a) within 5 calendar days of receiving notice of the Court’s ruling.
The Plaintiff is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
15 30-2025-01532461 As to the Discovery Motions, all other matters will be heard in Court: Ngan Nguyen vs. Jesse M. Rickard, Trustee of The Court has read and considered the Plaintiff’s Motions: ROA 53, ROA 54, the J&L Rickard 2006 and ROA 55. Family Trust The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories- Unlawful Detainer (Set One) is GRANTED. Defendant is hereby ordered to serve full and complete verified responses, without objection to Form Interrogatories-Unlawful Detainer, within 5 days of service of notice hereto.
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Admitted All Matters In Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (Set One) be and hereby is granted and that the truth of all specified matters, and the genuineness of all specified documents, in the First Set of Requests for Admissions, propounded by Plaintiff and served on Defendant on April 3, 2026, be deemed admitted.
The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED. Defendant is hereby ordered to serve full and complete verified responses, without objection to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One), within 5 days of service of notice hereto.
The Court orders the Defendant’s Counsel, Ayinde Jones, SBN3 283668, forthwith to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,125 to the Plaintiff. This sum shall be made payable to "AWB Law, P.C." within 5 business days and shall be delivered to 2040 Main Street, Suite 500, Irvine, CA 92614.
The Plaintiff is ordered to provide electronic notice of this Court’s order.
17 30-2026-01547207 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Notice of Intention to Coach Royal-003, L.P. Move for New Trial and to Vacate Judgment; Combined Motion Under Code DBA Coach Royal of Civil Procedure § 657 and 663 (ROA 95) and Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA Mobilehome Park v. 106). Marquez