Motion for Protective Order
3. Gallagher vs. Razavi
25-01522835
1. Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories 2. Motion to Compel Production
These Motions are CONTINUED to June 26, 2026, to be heard with the motion already on calendar for that date.
THIS RULING IS FINAL.
Clerk to give notice.
4. Sneary vs. Gauntlet Holdings LLC
21-01220042
1. Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories 2. Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories
WITHDRAWN on June 2, 2026.
5. Powell vs. Daryani
25-01526978
Demurrer to Complaint
VACATED as MOOT based on Filing of FAC.
Demurrer to FAC will be heard on July 24, 2026
6. Blain vs. Ayers
23-01361840
Motion for Protective Order
The hearing for Plaintiff’s motion for protective order is VACATED, as the Court has granted responding Defendant’s ex parte application seeking an order permitting them to invoke the arbitration agreement. (See Minute Orders dated 3/10/26 (ROA 406) [granting RE/MAX Defendants’ ex parte request] and 11/3/25 (ROA 376) [Granting Defendant Pillsbury’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and providing “If the REMAX Defendants choose to contend there is a risk of conflicting rulings between the arbitration and court action, then REMAX defendants may promptly, seek to have Plaintiffs’ remaining claims against the REMAX Defendants referred to arbitration.
The REMAX Defendants may raise this issue via ex parte application, in light of the fast-approaching trial date...].) Since Plaintiff’s claims against Pillsbury and REMAX are all part of the arbitration proceeding, the remainder of this matter is STAYED pending arbitration. (See Code Civ. Proc. §1281.4.)
Since the court has granted the REMAX Defendants’ ex parte application to compel Blain to pursue his claims against them in the arbitration proceeding, the matter is stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration, and there is no basis to hear Plaintiff’s motion for protective order.
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?”
On the Court’s own motion, the ADR Review Hearing and Status Conference scheduled for July 30, 2026, is CONTINUED to October 8, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department C12. Status Report due by September 24, 2026.
THIS RULING IS FINAL.
Clerk to give notice.
7. Fadly vs. Hi-Tech Builders, Inc.
24-01440345
Motion to Expunge Mechanics Lien
The Court has considered the extensive briefing submitted in connection with this motion, including the supplemental briefings filed after the original April 17, 2026, hearing date.
The Court notes that the briefing history included repeated late filings by Hi-Tech, which unnecessarily complicated the Court’s review.
Having considered the record, the Court affirms its original tentative ruling posted for the April 17, 2026, hearing date. Plaintiff Bradly Fadly’s motion to expunge the mechanic’s lien filed by defendant Hi- Tech Builders, Inc. is GRANTED.
Hi-Tech has not made a sufficient evidentiary showing, on this record, to establish the validity, enforceability, and amount of the lien.
Hi-Tech has not made a sufficient evidentiary showing that establishes the validity, enforceability, and amount of the claimed lien. Hi-Tech’s supplemental opposition relies largely on attorney arguments and conclusory assertions that work was performed and that invoices, ledgers, receipts, change orders, and subcontractor payments support the lien. However, to this Court, Hi-Tech has not presented persuasive competent evidence adequately establishing the amount claimed or showing that the lien is enforceable in the amount recorded.
The mechanic’s lien against the property owned by Fadly, recorded as Document No. 2024000219904, in the official records of the Recorder’s Office of Orange County on or about August 27, 2024, by Defendant and Cross-Complainant Hi-Tech Builders, Inc. is Expunged and released from the property.
This ruling is without prejudice to Hi-Tech’s ability to pursue its nonlien claims in the underlying action.