But even if the Court were to reconsider its prior ruling, the evidence provided does not warrant reversal. The passport entries do not show Willet was out of the country on the day the proof of service shows he was personally served. (ROA 26; Suppl. Willet Decl., Ex. A.) And the credit card transactions are not proof of physical presence, as they do not show who made the purchases or that the card was physically in Willet’s possession. (Id., Ex. B.) Moreover, the Court also denied the motion based on untimeliness, and the new evidence does not overcome this finding. (ROA 126.)
The motion is therefore DENIED.
Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.
9. Gibson Holdings, LLC v. Pure Rapscallion, Inc 24-1382993 Plaintiff Gibson Holdings, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) unopposed Motion for Issue Sanctions (“Motion”) is DENIED.
Plaintiff requests issue sanctions against pro per defendant Daniel Adam Hewko aka Adam Hewko (“Adam”). Adam was previously represented by counsel, but that counsel substituted out. The pleadings Plaintiff served on Adam following Adam’s former counsel stopping representation have all been e-served on Adam at adam@bottlecoatings.com and/or adam@glugwater.com. To electronically serve a pro per party, the pro per party must file consent to receive electronic service. (CA Rules of Court Rule 2.251.) There is nothing in the court’s records which indicates Adam filed such consent. Adam’s former counsel noted Adam’s email address was adam@dynamicbrandsllc.com, which is neither of the two email addresses above. (ROA 184.) It is unclear where Plaintiff obtained the above addresses where electronic service has been sent.
In addition to electronically serving Adam the present Motion, Plaintiff electronically served Adam the underlying court order which is the basis of this Motion. (ROA 270.) As that service was improper, Adam has not technically received notice of the court’s order and therefore cannot have violated it.
For the above reasons the Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff will need to properly serve the underlying order and then, if Adam does not comply, Plaintiff will need to file a new motion for sanctions should it so choose.
The court also notes corporate defendant Pure Rapscallion, Inc. (“PRI”) has been unrepresented since 10/02/25. (ROA 268.) The court hereby sets an OSC Re: Why Unrepresented Corporation Pure Rapscallion, Inc.’s Answer Should Not Be Struck for July 9, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C-20.
Plaintiff to give notice to all parties, including Pure Rapscallion, Inc.
10. Farkas v. Smith 23-1324888 (Off calendar) 11. Millen v. General Motors LLV (Continued)
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?”