DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2024-01436961·orange·Civil·Contract
Hearing 3 months agoCONTINUED

Huynh vs. Williams

Motion for Reconsideration; Case Management Conference

Hearing date
Jun 1, 2026
Department
C15
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 14, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Reconsideration rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHuynh
DefendantWilliams

Ruling

no showing that the violation was willful. Further, there has been no incremental approach to sanctions and lesser sanctions of issue, evidentiary, and/or monetary sanctions are appropriate at this time.

Tentative Ruling: Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

Sanctions:

Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $2,573.70 calculated as follows: $300/hr. x. 6.4hrs.; plus $60 filing fee and $653.70 for a Certificate of Non-Appearance. The amount requested is excessive and is reduced to $1,313.70 ($300/hr. x 2hrs. + $60 filing fee + $653.70).]

Tentative Ruling: Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,313.70. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay $1,313.70 in monetary sanctions to Defendant within 20 days’ notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to comply with the Court’s 12-30-25 Order and appear for her deposition within 20 days’ notice of this ruling. The Court warns Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court’s Order will result in more severe sanctions, which may include terminating sanctions.

Plaintiff to give notice.

9 Huynh vs. Williams 1. Motion for Reconsideration 2. Case Management Conference

Parties have stipulated to continue the motion to 09/14/2026 at 1:45 pm in Department C15. The Case Management Conference is hereby also continued to 09/14/2026 at 1:45 pm in C15.

22

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share