DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV-06400·merced·Civil·Contract
Hearing 2 months agoDENIED

Kalid Sanchez vs Los Banos Enterprise, et al

Motion to Correct Minute Order Dated 5/14/2026

Hearing date
Jun 18, 2026
Department
8
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$6,278$5,153$3,342.50$1,875$1,125

Parties

PlaintiffKalid Sanchez
DefendantLos Banos Enterprise

Ruling

24CV-04428 People vs $13,071.00 US Currency

Status Conference

Appearance required.

24CV-05216 People vs $309,481.10 U.S. Currency

Status Conference

Appearance required.

25CV-06400 Kalid Sanchez vs Los Banos Enterprise, et al

Motion to Correct Minute Order Dated 5/14/2026

Plaintiff’s motion to correct the minute order dated May 14, 2026, is DENIED.

The Court has reviewed the May 14, 2026, minute order and the court record.

Plaintiff did not request oral argument in accordance with Local Rule 3.1(F). Local Rule 3.1(F) requires any party intending to appear to present oral argument following the posting of a tentative ruling to notify all parties by telephone or in person, and to notify the court by telephone, no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. Regardless of whether Defendant was notified, the record shows that the court was not notified as required. Accordingly, Plaintiff waived oral argument.

The Court finds the typographical error on Defendant’s form MC-010, wherein Defendant’s counsel inadvertently stated he was attorney for “Plaintiffs,” to be harmless error. In addition, although initially listed in the Register of Actions as being filed by Plaintiff, the error was found and corrected to indicate that the form was filed by Defendant. The errors were not material to any issue in this case.

Finally, there is evidentiary basis for the award of $6,278 in attorney’s fees. Here, Plaintiff conflates Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and their memorandum of costs on form MC-010. These are separate and distinct forms of compensation. In reviewing the motion for attorney’s fees, the Court did not consider form MC-010.

As for the mathematical support, Defendant provided redacted invoices totaling $5,153 and not $3,342.50 as asserted by Plaintiff. Furthermore, in addition to the $5,153, Defendant had initially requested an additional $1,875 for preparation of the motion and in anticipation of preparing a reply and attendance at the hearing. The Court found this request excessive and reduced the amount by two (2) hours, which resulted in a reduced award of $1,125. The result was a total award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,278.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share