Gina Zancanaro v. Moore

supports sealing the records. There is a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the documents are not sealed; the proposed sealing order is narrowly tailored; and there are no less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest.

Other than the Court, no persons or parties are authorized to inspect the sealed record. The sealed material may not be disclosed in anything that is subsequently publicly filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(e).)

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

9 Vega vs. TENTATIVE RULING: General Motors LLC Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff Angelica Vega moves for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. For the following reasons, the motion is CONTINUED to July 8, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this Department.

A request for attorney’s fees filed prior to the rendition of judgment is premature, as there can be no prevailing party until there is a final judgment or dismissal, and courts generally cannot make interim attorney fee awards unless authorized by statute. (See Yuba Cypress Housing Partners, Ltd. v. Area Developers (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1086; Kaura v. Stabilis Fund II, LLC (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 420, 436; Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 805, 831 [holding that even when not explicitly barred, interim awards are not allowed in absence of clear expression of legislative intent].)

Here, the court record reflects no entry of judgment or dismissal.

Should Plaintiff file and serve a Request for Dismissal of this matter, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (ROA # 43) and Memorandum of Costs (ROA # 41) SHALL be deemed filed and served on the date of entry of dismissal.

Plaintiff to give notice.

10 Zancanaro vs. TENTATIVE RULING: Moore Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

Plaintiff Gina Zancanaro moves to amend the complaint to file a proposed second amended complaint. The motion is CONTINUED to July 8, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this Department.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), provides in relevant part that a motion to amend pleading must include a copy of the proposed amended pleading, serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1324(a).)

Plaintiff Zancanaro’s motion does not attach a copy of the proposed second amended complaint. (See ROA # 19.) Attorney Sabbagh purports to attach a copy of the proposed amended complaint as Exhibit 2 to her Declaration (see Sabbagh Decl. ¶ 8), but the attached exhibit is a copy of the operative FAC.

No later than nine (9) court days before the continued hearing, Plaintiff shall file and (if applicable) serve a copy of the proposed Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

11 Stark 2, LLC TENTATIVE RULING: vs. Barton For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Austin Barton’s Anti- SLAPP motion to strike Plaintiff Stark 2, LLC’s Complaint, or portions thereof, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d)).

Plaintiff’s objections to the declarations of Austin Barton and counsel Briana Kim are OVERRULED.

Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a motion for limited discovery is DENIED. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, subd. (g) provides that the court, “on noticed motion and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted notwithstanding this subdivision.” Plaintiff did not file a noticed motion. Therefore, the court denies this request as it is improper.

Anti-SLAPP motion to strike

Under the anti-SLAPP statute, “A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff