Case Management Conference
(2) Case number 30-2024-01407963 (Batoon vs. The Learning Light Foundation, Inc., et al.) (the “Batoon Action”); and (3) Case number 30-2026-01568593 (The Learning Light Foundation, Inc. vs. Tayfour) (the “5671 Action”).
In the Sutcliffe Action, what is currently before the Court is the OSC re Preliminary Injunction, set at the request of Ms. Tayfour, regarding access to and control of Learning Light Foundation, Inc. (“LLF”) funds and accounts, among other things.
In the Batoon Action, what is currently before the Court is the continued hearing on the Amended Motion to Disqualify James Lawrence Hanger III as Counsel of Record, regarding the assertion by Ms. Tayfour’s counsel that she is counsel for LLF, and that Mr. Hanger is not authorized to represent LLF.
In the 5671 Action, what is currently before the Court is the continued Case Management Conference.
The merits of both the OSC re Preliminary Injunction and the Amended Motion to Disqualify, etc. are in substantial part dependent upon who is authorized to act for LLF and has the right to hire and direct counsel for LLF. The Court will thus address that issue forthwith, in the 5671 Action. An imminent date for an evidentiary hearing in the 5671 Action will thus be set at this hearing. The Court, in conformity with the articles and bylaws to the extent feasible, will determine the person(s) entitled to the office of director and/or may order a new election to be held or appointment to be made.
In this process, the Court will have to determine the validity of the issuance of memberships and the right of persons to vote and may direct such other relief as may be just and proper at that hearing. 8 Batoon v. The See above. Learning Light Foundation, Inc. 9 The Learning See above. Light Foundation, Inc. v. Tayfour 10 Trejo v. Trejo The Motion for Leave to Amend brought by Cross-Complainant Carmen Trejo is DENIED, without prejudice to a motion which: (1) Complies with California Rules of Court rule 3.1324; and (2) Attaches the Complaint for which leave will be sought.
Cross-Complainant Carmen Trejo seeks leave to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint which adds a claim for Partition. (Motion: 3:23-24.)
Cross-Defendants do not oppose the substantive amendment requested. (Opposition: 6:16-17.) Nor do Cross-Defendants appear to dispute the timeliness of the motion; however, as noted by Cross- Defendants, Cross-Complainant failed to comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1324
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?”