SARGENT v. VOGLER, et al.

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: AUGUST 10, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES

Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

No. 25CV01908

FISCHER v. SAADIAN

(UNOPPOSED) DEFENDANT TYLER SAADIAN’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

The motion is denied. Defendant failed to file his proposed responsive pleading along with the motion, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5, subdivision b.

No. 25CV03022

SARGENT v. VOGLER, et al.

(UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

The motion is again vacated; plaintiff failed to file her motion at least 16 court days before the hearing date and failed to provide any declaration supporting the motion describing the changes and need for them. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint on January 30, 2026. That hearing was set for March 18, 2026, but the hearing was vacated since plaintiff failed to file any moving papers. On April 20, 2026, at a case management conference, the court instructed plaintiff to reserve a new motion date. Plaintiff thereafter reserved a hearing date (June 3, 2026) but failed to serve any updated notice of motion or proof of service for the new hearing date. In

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: AUGUST 10, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

the court’s tentative ruling, plaintiff was instructed that if she intended to reset a hearing for leave to file an amended complaint, a new notice of motion and related papers would be necessary.

The complaint plaintiff filed on July 27, 2026, is stricken and she is instructed to proceed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 472, 473, and 1005, and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. In the alternative, the parties can submit a stipulation and order allowing an amended complaint.

No. 26CV00232

LAING v. STEINBERG

DEFENDANT LYNN STEINBERG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16

DEFENDANT REGINA MARSHALL’S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16

DEFENDANT MARSHALL’S MOTION TO SEAL JUVENILE CUSTODY PROCEEDING COURT RECORDS

The motion to seal is granted. The motions to strike are granted.

I. BACKGROUND AND COMPLAINT

This case stems from a protracted custody dispute between Justin and Jessica Laing over their children, Maya (who was a minor at the time of the incidents which gives rise to her case) and minor S.R.L. Maya and S.R.L are the plaintiffs in this case.

Defendant Regina Marshall, Ph.D. (Dr. Marshall) was the court-appointed reunification therapist for the Laing family in the family law case and provided reunification therapy services. (Compl. at ¶ 5.) Defendant Lynn Steinberg, Ph.D. (Dr. Steinberg), is a marriage and family therapist and provided intensive reunification therapy services. Steinberg conducted a four-day reunification therapy session at her residence in Los Angeles with Maya and S.R.L. (Compl. at ¶ 4.)

In the fall of 2021 Justin and Jessica Laing and their children began court-ordered reunification therapy with Dr. Marshall, who provided reports to the court “documenting consistent and substantial progress.” (Compl. at ¶¶ 57-58.) In July 2022, the children reported to their father conduct by Jessica which they believed to be indicative of sexual abuse and neglect.