Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange
Hon. ANDRE MANSSOURIAN Department C12 – (657) 622-5212
TENTATIVE RULINGS
Court will make every effort to post tentative rulings by approximately 3:00 p.m. the court day before the date the motion is to be heard. If the parties agree to submit on the Court’s tentative ruling, please call Department C12 directly to inform the court that all parties submit to the Court’s tentative ruling. Reminder: Court does NOT provide court reporters. No filings or briefs of any kind will be accepted after the tentative ruling is posted. Parties are welcome to be present in court for the law and motion calendar or appear by Zoom. To make an appearance via Zoom please click the following link. If you are unable to log in, please call the department for an alternative arrangement. https://www.occourts.org/civil-remotehearings.
June 5, 2026
# Case Name Tentative 1. Sampson vs. SZ Orland Park, LLC
26-01554313
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Plaintiffs Jamal Sampson, individually and as Parent and Legal Guardian of Josiah Sampson and Alexis Clark, Individually and as Parent and Legal Guardian of Josiah Sampson’s application to admit Counsel Clell C. Warriner, IV as counsel pro hac vice is GRANTED. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.)
Plaintiff has filed a valid proof of service of the continued hearing date, pursuant to the Court’s 4/23/26 minute order. Plaintiff has complied with the substantive requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.
THIS RULING IS FINAL.
Moving Party shall provide notice.
2. Delgadillo vs. General Motors, LLC
25-01481736
Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)
Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition and the Imposition of Sanctions is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.26
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?”
Code of Civil Procedure § 871.26 provides that: “Within 120 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties have the right to conduct initial depositions, each not to exceed two hours, of the following deponents,” including “[t]he plaintiff.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 871.26, subd. (c).)
Here, Plaintiff did not appear for his deposition within in the 120 days, and did not provide alternative dates for his deposition, as requested by GM.
Plaintiff argues GM is barred from compelling his deposition because it did not complete the deposition within 120 days of the filing of its demurrer. But this argument is specious. The reason the deposition was not completed is because Plaintiff did not appear at his deposition or provide alternative dates.
Although Section 871.26 is silent on any deadline or procedure in which to file a motion to compel compliance, the court has authority to hear this matter. (See Chavez v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 165, 180 [gaps in statutes due to legislative silence “may be filled by courts through the exercise of their inherent authority in the absence of a clear legislative intent to the contrary that goes beyond the silence itself”].) To force GM to re-notice Plaintiff’s deposition and again attempt to schedule his deposition would negate the reason behind the enactment of Section 871.26 – to streamline and expedite the lemon law litigation process.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear at his deposition by July 31, 2026.
Further, GM’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel is GRANTED in the amount of $1,500 for failure to comply with CCP § 871.26(c).) Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate “good cause” for his non-compliance.
Moving Party to give notice of this ruling.