Pasche vs. Ox Car Care, Inc.

before the designated hearing time. Once the online check-in is completed, participants will be prompted to join the courtroom’s Zoom hearing session. Participants will initially be directed to a virtual waiting room pending the start of their specific video hearing. Check-in instructions and instructional video are available at. The Court’s “Appearance Procedures and Information--Civil Unlimited and Complex” and “Guidelines for Remote Appearances” also are available at. Those procedures and guidelines will be strictly enforced.

Public Access: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings. Members of the media or public may obtain access to law and motion hearings in this department by either coming to the department at the designated hearing time or contacting the courtroom clerk at (657) 622-5223 to obtain login information. For remote appearances by the media or public, please contact the courtroom clerk 24 hours in advance so as not to interrupt the hearings.

NO FILMING, BROADCASTING, PHOTOGRAPHY, OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING IS PERMITTED OF THE VIDEO SESSION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 1.150 AND ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULE 180.

# Case Name Case Number Tentative 1. Pasche vs. Ox Car Care, Inc. 2026-01548650 Before the court is the unopposed petition filed by petitioner John Pasche (Petitioner) to confirm the arbitration award issued on February 4, 2026, in the amount of $53,663.50 against respondent Ox Car Care, Inc. dba Ox Warranty Group (Respondent). As more fully set forth below, the petition is GRANTED. The petition seeks to confirm the Final Arbitrator’s Consent Award entered by Michael H. Leb of American Arbitration Association’s Employment Arbitration Tribunal on February 4, 2026. (Copy attached as Attachment 8(c) to Petition.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.2 provides, “A petition under this title shall be heard in a summary way in the manner and upon the notice provided by law for the making and hearing of motions, except that not less than 10 days’ notice of the date set for the hearing on the petition shall be given.” Once a party to an arbitration files a petition to confirm, correct, or vacate an award, a response must be filed and served within 10 days after service of the petition, unless a judge extends, or both parties agree to extend, this deadline. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 1290.6.) If a response is not filed by the deadline, the allegations of the petition are deemed admitted by the respondent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.) Here, there has been no response to the petition

by Respondent. Further, the court finds the Petition complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4. Accordingly, the arbitrator’s Award in favor of Petitioner is CONFIRMED. Petitioner’s request for an additional award of interest or attorney’s fees beyond the amounts stated in the award is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Petitioner has failed to submit calculations or evidence supporting such. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 [“In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations”].) Indeed, the petition is not verified and there is no declaration submitted in support of it nor are there any calculations establishing the amount of interest sought. Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

2. Lopez, Bark & Schulz LLP vs. Watson 2025-01537149 Before the court is (1) the continued hearing on the petition to confirm arbitration award filed by petitioner Lopez, Bark & Schulz LLP (Petitioner), and (2) Petitioner’s ex parte application for order permitting service of petition via electronic mail and/or other electronic technology pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 413.30. No tentative on the merits will be posted. The will hear from counsel at the hearing.

3. Petition of Greenberg 2026-01559277 Before the court is the petition to compel inspection of corporate records filed by petitioner David Greenberg (Petitioner). As set forth more fully below, the hearing is CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23. A stockholder’s right to inspect the corporate books may be enforced by a writ of mandate. (Webster v. Barlett Estate Co. (1917) 35 Cal.App. 283, 285; see also Most v. First Nat. Bank of San Diego (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 425; Tritek Telecom, Inc. v.

Superior Court (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1385.) A petition for writ of mandate must be served on respondent (and real parties in interest, if any) in the manner required for service of a summons and complaint, i.e., pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10 et. seq. (Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 830, 839.) Here, Petitioner has not filed any proof of service showing timely and properly service of the petition and notice of hearing on respondent Plastoker, Inc. (Respondent) Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the petition is CONTINUED as stated above.

Petitioner is ordered to