Alvira v. Pampanga Food Company, Inc., et al.

3

connection with the writ, AC 2525 could have done so, including by seeking leave to file a supplemental brief in advance of the writ hearing. It did not do so. AC 2525’s other arguments do not purport to identify new or different facts, circumstances or law, but rather reargue AC 2525’s positions and express AC 2525’s disagreement with the court’s ruling. E.g., Brief (ROA 166) at 2:16 (“Third, the Court’s focus on Petitioner’s ownership interest in the Property is misguided”); Reply (ROA 175) at 5:25-26 (“The Court should reconsider its order because its mootness determination rests on an incorrect legal conclusion”).

Respondent City of Santa Ana filed a surreply (ROA 177) in which it seeks sanctions against AC 2525 pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 128.5. The City’s request for sanctions is denied without prejudice to the City filing and serving a motion for sanctions pursuant to section 128.5. The City’s Reply Request for Judicial Notice is denied as the document is not material to the disposition of the motion for reconsideration. Respondent City of Santa Ana to give notice. 2 Alvira v. Pampanga Food Company, Inc., et al.

2025-01484062 Plaintiff Balbino Alvira’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order Plaintiff Balbina Alvira moves for entry of a protective order following defendants Omni Resource Solutions, LLC’s (Omni) and Pampanga Food Company, Inc.’s (Pampanga) refusals to respond to plaintiff’s request that defendants stipulate to entry of a protective order based on the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s model protective order. Omni did not file an opposition. Pampanga filed a “limited” opposition. Plaintiff agrees in his reply with Pampanga’s request that the archival provision in paragraph 21 of plaintiff’s proposed protective order (ROA 164) be made reciprocal.

None of Pampanga’s other objections to plaintiff’s proposed protective order is persuasive. There is no need to restate portions of the court’s March 5, 2026 order (ROA 153) in the protective order, to set forth Pampanga’s litigation positions in the protective order, or to include obvious points (e.g., the protective order is not a sealing order) in the protective order. Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve by June 18, 2026 a revised copy of plaintiff’s proposed protective order (ROA 164) with paragraph 21 modified to be reciprocal.

Pampanga’s request that the court enter its competing proposed protective order (ROA 216) is denied. Plaintiff to give notice. 3 Arriola v. Harbor Distributing, LLC, et al.

2025-01502092 Defendants Harbor Distributing, L.L.C. and Reyes Holdings, L.L.C.’s Motion to Stay Defendants Harbor Distributing, L.L.C. and Reyes Holdings, L.L.C move to stay this class action pending resolution of two previouslyfiled class and representative action lawsuits (Ascensao v. Harbor Distributing, L.L.C., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 24STCV14911, and Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, L.L.C., San