Mann vs. Knuppel

TENTATIVE RULINGS Judge Lindsey E. Martínez, Dept. C24

“Civility is not about etiquette. This is not a matter of bad manners. Incivility slows things down, it costs people money – money they were counting on their lawyers to help them save. And it contravenes the Legislature’s directive that ‘all parties shall cooperate in bringing the action to trial[.]’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.130.)” (Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool Law Firm, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal. App. 5th 902, 911; see generally OCBA Civility Guidelines.)

• The court encourages remote appearances to save time and reduce costs. • All hearings are open to the public. • You must provide your own court reporter and interpreter, if required. • Call the other side and ask if they will submit to the tentative ruling. If everyone submits, call the clerk. The tentative ruling will become the order. If anyone does not submit, there is no need to call the clerk. • The court will hold a hearing. 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.)

Hearing Date: June 8, 2026 at 1:30 pm Rulings Posted: 6/5/26 at 12 pm

# Case Name Tentative 301 Mann vs. The motion for summary judgment directed to the Knuppel second amended complaint (SAC) of plaintiff Alex Mann (Plaintiff) filed by defendants Neil W. Knuppel and Neil W. Knuppel, a Professional Corporation (collectively, Knuppel) is DENIED.

Knuppel’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence of and legal effects of the records, but not as to the truth of any disputed facts asserted therein. (Evid. Code § 452(d).)

Here, Knuppel filed a motion for summary judgment only. Thus, the presence of any triable issue of material fact requires denial of the motion.

(Homestead Sav. v. Sup.Ct. (Dividend Develop. Corp.) (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498.)

Knuppel failed to meet their initial burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of a triable issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, subdivision (a). The SAC alleges this action is brought “as a result of [defendants’] representation of Plaintiff in three probate actions brought in the Superior Court of Orange County, California.” (SAC ¶ 1; see also SAC ¶ 8.)

Knuppel’s motion, however, addresses only two probate actions – case numbers 30-2015-00802939 and 30-2016-00832674. (See Motion at pp. 7:10-12; 13:13-28; UMF 1, 19-22.) Knuppel failed to offer any argument or evidence pertaining to the third probate action as alleged in the SAC and thus failed to address the full scope of Plaintiff’s claims against them.

The pleadings serve as the “‘outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment motion.’” (White v. Smule, Inc. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 346, 354.) Therefore, in order to obtain summary judgment, it was incumbent upon Knuppel to offer evidence showing the entirety of Plaintiff’s claims against them fails. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).) Knuppel failed to do so and thus failed to meet their initial burden on this motion.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

302 Expandavision, Cross-Complainants Christine Collins (Collins) and LLC vs. Collins Miramar Wellness Spa PC’s (Miramar)(collectively referred to as Cross-Complainants) motion for summary judgment on their cross-complaint against Marco Tawachi and Expandavision, LLC (Cross-Defendants) is GRANTED as to Collins only.