DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV2025-0939·yolo·Civil·Civil
Hearing 27 days agoDENIED

Accardi v. Accardi

request for clarification

Hearing date
Jul 28, 2026
Department
Thirteen
Judge
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$55,000.00

Parties

DefendantGiovanna Accardi
PlaintiffFilippa Ferrando
PlaintiffVito Accardi

Attorneys

Underwood Law Firm(Underwood Law Firm)for Plaintiff

Ruling

Case: Accardi v. Accardi Case No. CV2025-0939 Hearing Date: July 28, 2026 Department Thirteen 9:00 a.m.

Defendant Giovanna Accardi’s request for clarification is DENIED. First, defendant asks the Court to modify its June 24, 2026, order, but fails to cite legal authority to support this request. Second, on November 6, 2025, and January 15, 2026, the Court ordered that $55,000.00 be paid to plaintiffs Filippa Ferrando and Vito Accardi’s counsel, Underwood Law Firm, for its attorney’s fees lien from the escrow proceeds. (Interlocutory judgment [dated November 6, 2025], ¶¶ 4, 7c; Order [dated January 15, 2026], ¶¶ 4, 5e; Robinson decl. [filed March 30, 2026], ¶ 14.) The Court declines to modify these orders.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counsel for moving party, or the moving party if unrepresented by counsel, is ordered to notify the opposing party or parties immediately of the tentative ruling system.

If no hearing is requested, and no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

2 of 7

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share