| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record
“Civility allows for zealous representation, reduces clients’ costs, better advances clients’ interests, reduces stress, increases professional satisfaction, and promotes effective conflict resolution. These guidelines foster the civility and professionalism that are hallmarks of the best traditions of the legal profession.” OCBA Civility Guidelines
“The American legal profession exists to help people resolve disputes cheaply, swiftly, fairly, and justly. Incivility between counsel is sand in the gears.” (Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 734, 747.)
TENTATIVE RULINGS Judge Kimberly Knill, Dept. C31
• The court encourages remote appearances to save time, reduce costs, and increase public safety. Go to www.occourts.org/media-relations/civil.html and click the blue box, “Click here to appear/check-in for Civil Small Claims/Limited/Unlimited/Complex remote proceedings.” Navigate to Department C31 Judge Kimberly Knill.
• All hearings are open to the public.
• If you desire a transcript of the proceedings, you must provide your court reporter (unless you have a fee waiver and request a court reporter in advance).
• Call the other side. If everyone submits to the tentative ruling, call the clerk at 657-622-5231. Otherwise, the court may rule differently at the hearing. (See Lewis v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 436, 442, fn. 1.)
No filming, broadcasting, photography, or electronic recording of the video session is permitted pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 1.150, and Orange County Superior Court rule 180.
HEARING DATE: Friday, 5/15/2026 10:00 AM
# Case Name Tentative 1 Marriott Hotel Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice Services, LLC vs. The Application of Kristen McMullen to Appear as Counsel RingCentral, Pro Hac Vice for defendant RingCentral, Inc. is GRANTED. Inc. Applicant to give notice. 30-2024- 01429620-CU- BC-CJC 2 Estrada vs. Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record Segade 30-2022- The motion of attorney Sasha Tymkowicz to be relieved as 01292722-CU- counsel of record for Plaintiff Monica Margarita Estrada is PA-CJC DENIED. (
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?”
Counsel has failed to demonstrate service. Neither the declaration nor proof of service filed in support of the Motion attests to the manner of service.
Clerk to give notice.
3 Pellisier vs. Motion to Consolidate Cases Gertner 30-2025- Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. 01491927-CU- PN-CJC The following cases are consolidated for all purposes: (1) Case No. 2025-01491875, and (2) Case No. 2025- 01491927. Plaintiff has withdrawn his request as to Case No. 2026-01537886.
All future filings are to be submitted to the lower case number but are to reference both case numbers.
Plaintiff to give notice.
4 Romero vs. Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer Duong 30-2024- Defendant Benito Lopez Diaz’s unopposed Motion for Leave 01448857-CU- to File Amended Answer is GRANTED. PA-CJC Defendant is ORDERED to file the amended answer within 5 days.
Defendant to give notice.
5 Marfone vs. Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay or Dismiss the Harvey & Action Pending Arbitration Company, LLC The Motion to Compel Arbitration by defendants Harvey & 30-2025- Company, LLC; Harvey Equity Partners, LLC; HPI Partners, 01529049-CU- LLC; and David Harvey is GRANTED. BC-CJC The complaint filed by plaintiffs Vincent Marfone, Davis Matthews, and Luke Meyers alleges eleven causes of action arising from their claims that defendants Harvey & Company, LLC (“H&C”), Harvey Equity Partners, LLC (“HEP”), HPI Partners, LLC (“HPI”), and David Harvey breached the Harvey Equity Partners LLC, Amended and Restated Operating Agreement (“HEP Agreement”) and the Limited Liability Company Agreement of HPI Partners LLC (“HPI Agreement”), and violated various sections of the Labor Code.
Defendants’ objections nos. 5, 11-14 are SUSTAINED. The remaining objections are OVERRULED.