Mann vs. Knuppel

TENTATIVE RULINGS Judge Lindsey E. Martínez, Dept. C24

“Civility is not about etiquette. This is not a matter of bad manners. Incivility slows things down, it costs people money – money they were counting on their lawyers to help them save. And it contravenes the Legislature’s directive that ‘all parties shall cooperate in bringing the action to trial[.]’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.130.)” (Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool Law Firm, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal. App. 5th 902, 911; see generally OCBA Civility Guidelines.)

• The court encourages remote appearances to save time and reduce costs. • All hearings are open to the public. • You must provide your own court reporter and interpreter, if required. • Call the other side and ask if they will submit to the tentative ruling. If everyone submits, call the clerk. The tentative ruling will become the order. If anyone does not submit, there is no need to call the clerk. • The court will hold a hearing. 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.)

Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 at 1:30 pm Rulings Posted: 8/21/26 at 5 pm

# Case Name Tentative 301 Mann vs. Muscarella requests dismissal pursuant to Code of Knuppel Civil Procedure section 583.420 based on Plaintiff’s alleged inexcusable failure to prosecute this case. Muscarella contends because of the delays in the pleadings caused by Plaintiff’s dilatory conduct and the numerous discovery motions caused by Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the discovery process, Muscarella has not been able to take Plaintiff’s deposition. He also states he is not able to file his motion for summary judgment until Plaintiff’s deposition is complete.

Plaintiff’s opposition confirms Plaintiff sat for his [second] deposition on August 11, 2026. (Schneider

Decl., ¶ 2.) The court’s records also confirm since this motion was filed the parties appear actively engaged in discovery. The parties filed Joint Letter Briefs, attended informal discovery conferences, and withdrew pending discovery motions after Plaintiff served discovery responses. (See ROA 936, 938, 940, 942, 952, 961, 962.) Under these circumstances, dismissal does not appear warranted.

Muscarella also failed to show that the delay in taking Plaintiff’s deposition was caused solely by Plaintiff’s dilatory conduct. Muscarella simply asserts he could not take the deposition until the pleadings were in order. But no evidence is offered as to any attempts Muscarella made to take Plaintiff’s deposition at an earlier date or showing Plaintiff refused to sit for his deposition at an earlier time. Moreover, Plaintiff filed his operative SAC in December 2024. The pleadings have thus been in order for the past 18 months. Muscarella did not file a reply for this motion and thus offered no argument to refute Plaintiff’s assertion that the case has been actively litigated. For the same reasons, Muscarella failed to support his alternative request for a trial continuance.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

302 Anderson vs. Before the court is a demurrer filed by defendants Bohm Wildish & Bohm, Wildish & Matsen, LLP, and Jennifer Matsen, LLP Wilson (Defendants together) to plaintiff Gary Anderson’s (Plaintiff) First Amended Complaint (FAC). The demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as described below.

Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by 9/11/26.

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to cause of action number one. (Code of Civil