Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
San Joaquin County Superior Court to consider any objections filed by Plaintiffs, nor does this Court have the authority to rule on the propriety of Nelson’s settlement.
For these reasons, the motion for a stay pending resolution of Nelson’s case is granted. 8 Abdelghany vs. Southern California Edison
2021-01195715
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Defendants Southern California Edison Company, Edison International, and T-Mobile USA, Inc. move to dismiss the claims of Plaintiffs Alicia Garcia, Brenda Martinez, Mauricio Valencia, Dehzad Derakhshani, Kobra Vaziri, Mona Marashi, Nazanin Marashi, and Peyda Marashi (“Non-Responsive Plaintiffs”). Defendants’ unopposed motion is GRANTED.
GROUNDS FOR RULING
I.
Factual Background
The Non-Responsive Plaintiffs are several of the numerous plaintiffs who filed suit against Defendants for claims arising from the Silverado Fire. All plaintiffs were represented by the Singleton firm. In a minute order dated September 2, 2022 (ROA 150), Judge Sherman granted the Singleton firm’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Dehzad Derakhshani, Kobra Vaziri, Mona Marashi, Nazanin Marashi, and Peyda Marashi. In a second minute order dated February 10, 2023 (ROA 188), Judge Sherman granted the Singleton firm’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Alicia Garcia, Brenda Martinez, and Mauricio Valencia.
The Non-Responsive Plaintiffs haven’t participated in discovery or motion practice since their counsel withdrew. (Greer Decl. (ROA 885) ¶ 7.) Nor did the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs participate in global settlement discussions that resulted in most of the other plaintiffs’ claims being resolved. (Ibid.)
On March 9, 2026, the Court entered a stipulated supplemental case management order requiring the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs to file fact sheets regarding claimed damages within 30 days. (ROA 880.) Counsel for Edison served the order, including the fact sheet, on the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs by overnight delivery. (ROA 883.) As of April 28, 2026—over 30 days later— the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs hadn’t served completed fact sheets. (Greer
Decl. ¶ 9.)
II. Discussion “The Court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to this article on its own motion or on motion of the defendant if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case.” (
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?”
As discussed above, the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs haven’t participated in this case since their counsel withdrew, three to four years ago. Defendants served the moving papers on April 28, 2026, more than 45 days before the scheduled hearing. The Non-Responsive Plaintiffs haven’t filed an opposition to the motion. “The failure of the opposing party to serve and file a written opposition may be construed by the court as an admission that the motion [to dismiss] is meritorious.” (CRC 3.1342(b).) For these reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted.
9 Quiros vs. Baby Brezza Enterprises LLC, a New York limited liability company,
2026-01539449
Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal
Plaintiff Eric Quiros’s motion to seal unredacted copies of (1) his own declaration and (2) his counsel’s declaration is DENIED. The clerk is ordered to publicly file the unredacted copies of these documents which are currently lodged with the Court.
GROUNDS FOR RULING
This is a consumer class action. Plaintiff and Defendant Baby Brezza Enterprises, LLC have agreed to settle the case on an individual basis, and Plaintiff has requested dismissal of his class claims without prejudice. CRC 3.770(a) requires that such a request be supported by a declaration that states whether consideration has been offered for the dismissal and describes that consideration in detail. Both Plaintiff’s declaration and his counsel’s declaration state the amount of his individual settlement. This amount is redacted from the publicly filed versions of the declarations. Plaintiff moves to permanently seal the lodged, unredacted versions.
A court may order a record to be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts establishing:
1. There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;
2. The overriding interest supports sealing the record;