Application of Leigh S. Montgomery to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice
"Conditionally settled" means: (1) A settlement agreement conditions dismissal on the satisfactory completion of specified terms that are not to be fully performed within two years after the filing of the case; and (2) Notice of the settlement is filed with the court as provided in rule 3.1385. (Cal. R. Ct., R. 3.1340(c).)
In this action, Plaintiffs have not propounded any written discovery, have not taken any depositions, have not designated any experts, and have not appeared to have investigated their claims. Now it appears Plaintiffs have also not acted diligently in settling their claims with Defendant. Plaintiffs have also failed to oppose this Motion. Under these circumstances, the court finds that Plaintiffs have unreasonably delayed in prosecuting their claims.
As Plaintiffs have not brought this action to trial nor conditionally settled the action within two years after the action was commenced, and as Plaintiffs did not oppose this Motion, the court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and hereby DISMISSES this action without prejudice.
The court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ alternative Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.
The court also VACATES the OSC re: Dismissal on Settled Case.
Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling to Plaintiffs.
15 30-2024-01428283 Plaintiff Christopher Winer’s (“Plaintiff”) Application of Winer vs. Phase II Leigh S. Montgomery (“Applicant”) to Appear as Counsel Pro Systems Hac Vice is GRANTED.
On or before the anniversary of the date of this order, if Applicant remains counsel for Plaintiff, Plaintiff must pay a renewal fee of five hundred dollars ($500). (Gov. Code § 70617(e)(2).)
The court VACATES the April 13, 2026 Order to Show Cause why the court should not impose monetary sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel for failing to comply with the court’s February 2, 2026 order.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
16 30-2025-01532976 The preliminary ruling is that plaintiff Daniel Chaffin’s Chaffin vs. Socal unopposed motion will be GRANTED upon resolution of the Superbikes issues below.
The court has the following questions and concerns that plaintiff must address in an amended proposed order which plaintiff must provide within five (5) days of this ruling:
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?”
1. Add page and paragraph numbers to the Notice.
2. The Notice should be identified and attached to the proposed order as an exhibit. ROA 61 ¶ 2.
3. The proposed order must identify the correct judicial officer and remove the attorney information on the caption page.
4. The footer of the proposed order should reflect the full document title.
17 30-2018-00982195 Continued to 6/10/26 Aresh vs. Hunt
18 30-2021-01186203 Continued to 6/10/26 Henkin vs. Mikles