City of Garden Grove v. Weber

requested alternative dates by email, but no response was provided. Honda again renewed its request for alternative dates by email on April 16, 2026, but still no response was provided. A telephone call regarding the matter was also unreturned.

These sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, Quill & Arrow, LLP, jointly and severally, and are to be paid to Honda, through its counsel of record, within 20 days after service of notice of this ruling.

Counsel for Honda is to give notice. 4 City of Garden Before the Court at present is the “Motion to Reduce the Excessive Grove v. and Unconstitutional Administrative Fines Issued by the City of Weber Garden Grove,” filed on 6/8/26 by Bradley K. Weber (“Owner”).

The Motion is GRANTED IN PART, as to the $5,600 sum identified by the City of Garden Grove (“City”) for four citations issued prior to 2020, and for one $1,600 duplicate citation, but otherwise DENIED.

City has asserted in its Opposition that Owner failed to pursue the administrative remedies available to him regarding the citations he now challenges, so that the court is without jurisdiction to overturn the administrative fines he disputes here.

True, exhaustion of administrative remedies does not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction; the exhaustion requirement may be waived and is subject to a number of exceptions. In the present case, Owner does not dispute that he failed to pursue the administrative remedies available to him, arguing instead that doing so would have been futile. But Owner has failed to show that this was so.

Owner’s Request for Judicial Notice, filed as ROA 406, is GRANTED as to the existence of the records under Ev. Code §§ 452(c) and (d).

City is to give notice of this ruling. 5 Objective Plaintiff Objective Standard Institute move for an order sealing Standard confidential attorney-client privileged information contained in Institute v. portions of the motion to disqualify counsel, the supporting Barney et. al. declaration of Jason Haas and exhibits D, E, G and H attached thereto. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

“[A] reasoned decision about sealing or unsealing records cannot be made without identifying and weighing the competing interests and concerns. Such a process is impossible without (1) identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to such treatment; (2) identifying the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure; and (3) identifying and accounting for countervailing considerations. The burden of presenting information sufficient to accomplish the first two steps is logically placed upon the party seeking the sealing of the documents, who is presumptively in the best position to know what disclosures will harm him and how. This means at a minimum that the party seeking to seal documents, or maintain them under seal, must come forward with a specific enumeration of the facts