Qiu vs. You Media Inc.
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
to grant the motion, because Plaintiff has met its initial burden and Defendant has not filed an opposing separate statement.
Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling and submit a proposed judgment to the Court and serve it upon all parties.
102 2024-01443801 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Qiu vs. You Media Plaintiff Weijia Qiu’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on the Second Amended Inc. Complaint is taken off calendar as moot.
The motion was directed to the unverified answer filed by Defendants on or about 4/2/26. (ROA 69.) On or about 7/6/26, Defendants filed a verified first amended answer. (ROA 80.) Accordingly, the Court finds the motion is moot.
The Clerk shall give notice of the ruling.
103 2020-01126907 Motion for Entry of Judgment
Security National No tentative issued. Insurance Company vs. DCE Construction Inc.
104 2021-01208837 Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal
Rudat vs. Sauter The motion of plaintiff Daniel Rudat and cross-defendants Fred and Marta Rudat for an order setting aside the dismissal entered on 3/16/26 is denied. [ROA # 476.]
Facts This was an action by Daniel Rudat to recover for personal injuries he suffered when he fell off the roof of a house he had been hired to do construction on by its owner, Gary Sauter and/or Longview Investments LLC. [First Amended Complaint (“FAC” – ROA #25), ¶¶ 9-11; Doe 1 Amendment (ROA #106).] The house was located in the state of Washington. [FAC, ¶ 8.]
Plaintiff was represented by the law firm of Pratt Williams, APLC/Pratt Law Group in the filing of his complaint and throughout this action until its dismissal on 3/16/26. [Id. and ROA ## 53, 463.] He was also represented by Kramer Trial Lawyers through trial. [ROA ## 243, 432, 448.]
Sauter responded to the FAC. [ROA ## 29, 51.] Then, he and Longview filed a cross- complaint for indemnity against Fred and Marta Rudat. [First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FAXC” – ROA #201), ¶¶ 8-16.] Fred and Marta Rudat answered the FAXC through attorney Edward Sublett, who has represented them throughout. [ROA #230.]
On 4/16/24, the parties stipulated to trifurcating the trial so that the conflict of law issue (California versus Washington law) would be tried to the Court first. [ROA #271.] Further, they stipulated that if Washington Law was found to apply Plaintiff’s complaint would be dismissed without prejudice. [Id., ¶ 6.]
After a year of litigation and continuances, the phase I trial was held and the Court found
Cited authorities
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?”