Trent vs. General Motors, LLC

Defendants have attached a proposed amended answer to their late opposing papers. (Opp’n Br., Exh. A.) From a quick review of the proposed amended answer, it appears that Defendants have not added (nor deleted) any affirmative defenses and they have added some factual allegations in connection with most of the asserted defenses.

One of the affirmative defenses clearly remains deficient – the 9th affirmative defense for statute of limitations. Indeed, it is arguably more deficient than before. The proposed amended answer merely adds the following underlined language: “Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations if so applicable after discovery.” No statute of limitations is identified. As such, leave to amend is not granted as to the demurrer to the 9th affirmative defense.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

14 Trent vs. General Demurrer (re Complaint) Motors, LLC Motion to Strike

OFF-CALENDAR. (See 6/24/26 Minute Order [hearing vacated after notice of withdrawal filed].)

15 Frahm vs. City of Motion to Seal Huntington Beach Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication (x3)

1. Motion to Seal

The court GRANTS in part, and DENIES in part, Plaintiffs ROBERT BOWDEN, MARK VAN METER, and FRANK GALLANT’s unopposed motion to seal. Specifically, the court GRANTS the motion to seal the evidence submitted in support of the opposing papers but DENIES the motion as to the remaining documents apparently sought to be

29