WLP DEL MAR I, LLC v. Straughter, et al

Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to award monetary sanctions. However, Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure at section 2023.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) Plaintiff’s notice of motion does not identify who she seeks sanctions from; cite the authority for the sanctions; or include a declaration “setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Ibid.) Thus, the Court would deny sanctions. *** *** ***

16. WLP DEL MAR I, LLC v. Straughter, et al, Case No. LLTVA2402206 Defendant’s Motion “for Payout” 5/7/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

In this case, a default money judgment was entered against the Defendant-Tenant (here, Straughter) on December 23, 2024. However, though no party has formally related the cases, Defendant filed a complaint against the landlord in a separate matter (Straughter v. WLP Del Mar I LLC (CIVSB2418046) – filed on June 4, 2024). That separate case moved forward in Department S26 until it was dismissed, after Straughter (plaintiff in that matter) failed to appear on four occasions. (Minute Order, Dept. S26, 4/8/26.)

While this pro per motion is vaguely worded, it appears that movant is asking this Court for a “payout” or judgment against WLP Del Mar pursuant to the allegations that she set forth in that separate matter (CIVSB2418046). Thus, as a preliminary matter, she has brought her motion before the wrong court in the wrong case. More importantly, however, that case was previously dismissed and would need to be revived before she could seek a judgment there. The motion is DENIED. *** *** ***

17. Powell, et al, v. Forest Park Mutual Water Company, Case No. CIVSB2427211 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike and Tax Costs 5/7/25, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

Tentative Rulings The Court would GRANT in part and DENY in part. Item 11 is taxed from $3,381 to $1,275. The remaining challenged relief is denied. Defendant shall recover $2,079, jointly and severally against Plaintiffs.

3