Motion to Enforce Court Order; Order to Show Cause re: Default
Cross-Defendant to give notice
106 Hillsboro Brown Capital, LLC vs. Taft
19-01087702 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record Gina M. Austin and Tamara Rozmus of Austin Legal Group (“Moving Attorneys”) move to be relieved as counsel of record for CMX Distribution Inc. A motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the mandatory Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-052). Without that form, the Court cannot determine whether service on the client was properly done at the last known address and what steps were made to confirm that the client’s last known address is current.
The hearing on the motion is CONTINUED to 08/04/2026 at 10:00 AM. Moving Attorneys are ORDERED to file a supplemental declaration on the correct form with all required information. Moving Attorneys are also ORDERED to file a revised proposed order reflecting all currently pending hearing dates. These filings are to be submitted no later than nine court days before the continued hearing date. Moving Attorneys to give notice.
108 Schiller vs. Fivefold Properties Dunnegan, LLC
24-01380115 1. Motion to Enforce Court Order 2. Order to Show Cause re: Default as to Fivefold Properties Dunnegan LLC Plaintiff Shanti Schiller (“Plaintiff”) will and hereby does move the Court for an order (1) compelling Defendant Jennifer Leonard (“Defendant”) to comply with the Court’s February 5, 2026 order (the “Order”); (2) imposing monetary sanctions upon Defendant in the sum of $6,107.00 for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with Plaintiff’s efforts to enforce the Order; and (3) imposing monetary sanctions upon Defendant in the sum of $1,500.00, payable to the Court, for her failure to comply with the Order.
CCP§128(4) authorizes the Court to “compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein.” CCP§ 2023.030(a) authorizes sanctions “against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.” Disobeying a court order to provide discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (CCP§ 2023.010
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?”
In this instance, on February 5, 2026, the Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Ordered Defendant to provide code compliant responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 2.5, limited in scope to only Defendant’s current residence, no later than five (5) days after receiving notice of this order. The Court also IMPOSED sanctions upon Defendant Jennifer Leonard in the total collective amount of $4,000.00, payable no later than ninety (90) days after receiving notice of the order.
Here, the Declaration of Attorney Wright establishes that, “On February 5, 2026, after the hearing on the Motion to Compel, my office served Defendant with notice of the Court’s order on the Motion to Compel.” (Wright Decl. ¶12.) This Notice of Ruling was served via electronic mail and regular mail. (See Ex. Id, Ex. 1.) Thereafter, on February 16, 2026, she sent a letter to Defendant asking that she comply with the Court’s order on or before February 19, 2028. (Id¶14.) To date, Attorney Wright has not received a supplemental response or response to the meet and confer. (Id.¶5.) As such, Defendant Leonard, who is in pro per, has seemingly violated this Court’s order.
However, this motion was sent to Defendant Leonard via email only. Yet, within the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record documents filed with this Court, Defendant Leonard’s prior counsel listed Defendant Leonard’s current and last known address as: 220 Newport Center Drive, 11, Newport Beach, CA 92660. As such, in an abundance of caution, recommendation is to continue this motion to 08/11/2026 at 10:00 am for MP to serve Defendant Leonard at 220 Newport Center Drive, 11, Newport Beach, CA 92660; and via email. Thereafter, if the Motion remains unopposed, the Court intends on granting it. MP to give notice
109 Franks vs. Ford Motor Company
23-01361158 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the first through fourth causes of action of plaintiff Chad Franks’ (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint on the ground that that Plaintiff cannot bring claims under the SBA based on the purchase of a “used” vehicle and the seventh cause of action fails because the claim does not apply if Plaintiff does not have a viable state law claim and Plaintiff failed to comply with the pre-suit dispute requirements.