order to show cause on application for entry of order of sale
from Hodson. As more fully set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.
The motion demonstrates the requests for production were served on Hodson on October 23, 2025. (Valinoti Decl., ¶ 9.) Hodson failed to provide a response to the requests and failed to produce the requested categories of documents. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-15, 30.) The requested relief therefore is warranted here under Code of Civil Procedure sections 708.030 and 2031.300. The motion therefore is GRANTED.
Hodson is ordered to provide verified, codecompliant responses to the requests, without objection, and produce all responsive documents, within 20 days after service of notice of this ruling.
Osher’s request for sanctions also is GRANTED, in the reduced sum of $2,440. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 708.030, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) Hodson is ordered to pay these monetary sanctions to Osher, through its counsel of record, within 30 days after service of notice of this ruling. Counsel for Osher is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
3. Khaytovich vs. Locascio 2022-01239428 OFF CALENDAR based on notice of withdraw filed on March 23, 2026.
4. Xiong v. Jeunesse Global, LLC 2019-01095448 Following the remittitur issued by the Court of Appeal, this case has been assigned to Judge Layne H. Melzer in Department CX102 for all purposes as stated in the May 27, 2026 minute order. The parties should contact that department to confirm or schedule any pending hearings.
5. Jessica Hernandez vs. AMCP Holdings 2025-01475407 Before the court is the continued hearing on the order to show cause on application for entry of order of sale regarding 17391 Breda Lane, Huntington Beach, California 92649. As more fully set forth below, this matter is CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23, for all the related family law issues to be resolved.
This matter was last heard by the court on January 29, 2026. At that time, the matter was continued to today’s date based on a pending dissolution of marriage matter involving judgment debtor Chris Pitts (case no. 19D008195) and ownership to the property that is the subject of the order to show cause.
According to a prior report by judgment creditor 1 st Integrity Capital of America LLC (Creditor), the judge in the family law case ordered ownership of the property must be resolved in the family law proceedings before any sale may be ordered. Trial in the family law case was set for May 5, 2025. It appears the trial began on that date, but the court continued it to June 30, 2026, for more information about the property at issue on this order to show cause.
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?”
Accordingly, this hearing is CONTINUED as set forth above to allow the family law court to resolve all issues regarding ownership of the property so this court can determine whether it may properly order the sale of the property. Creditor is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
6. In the Matter of the Assumption of Law Practice of Carlos F. Negrete 2016-00836353 Before the court is the third motion by petitioner State Bar of California (Petitioner) to “Terminate Jurisdiction Over Carlos F. Negrete’s Unauthorized Law Practice.”
The two prior motions were denied without prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure to present sufficient evidence to show Petitioner adequately complied with and carried out the court’s March 2, 2016 order authorizing Petitioner to assume jurisdiction over Mr. Negrete’s law practice. Before denying those prior motions, the court granted Petitioner continuances to present sufficient evidence to show how Petitioner properly carried out the March 2, 2016 order, but Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence in each instance.
Initially, the court also must note Petitioner did not assume jurisdiction over Mr. Negrete’s law practice because he was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law as suggested in the title of the current motion. As the court previously noted (see August 14, 2025 Minute Order), Petitioner assumed jurisdiction over Mr. Negrete’s law practice pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6190, et seq., which authorizes the assumption of an attorney’s law practice “when an attorney engaged in the practice of law in this state has, for any reason, including but not limited to excessive use of alcohol or drugs, physical or mental illness, or other infirmity or other cause, become incapable of devoting the time and attention to, and providing the quality of service for, his or her law practice which is necessary to protect the interest of a client if there is an unfinished client matter for which no other active licensee of the State Bar, with the consent of the client, has agreed to assume responsibility.”
Petitioner’s application to assume jurisdiction was supported by, inter alia, a declaration from Mr. Negrete explaining he had suffered a number of health issues that prevented him from continuing