Unknown v. Unknown

counsel claims is true, and the court has a high regard for McCourt's counsel based on her actions and conduct thus far in this case. The court cautions Fuller's current counsel that counsel should ensure that evidence put before the court be proper. Counsel is, of course, entitled to represent their client zealously and to believe their client; that is what lawyers do. But if a declaration is going to be procured by Fuller to be used in court, counsel has an obligation to be sure that the declaration was obtained properly.

The court has seen the supplemental materials Fuller filed on August 20, 2026, without authorization. The court has seen them but has not read them. They are STRICKEN. If Fuller wants to file unauthorized papers in the future, he should at least have the courtesy to bring a simultaneous request showing the need for that kind of extraordinary relief. The court is aware of the request for leave to do this--which the court saw for the first time this morning. That request comes too late.

Finally, the court reiterates that there is a trial coming up. This case has been going for a while. All parties--both Fuller and McCourt as well as the other parties in this case--have a right to get this matter resolved one way or the other, and it has been far too long already, largely due to Fuller's and his counsel's repeated misconduct in the summary judgment process. The court has no intention of allowing anything to interfere with this trial going forward other than extreme unforeseen circumstances. If the court is engaged in trial, the court will complete that trial, but this case will trail and begin immediately after that case concludes, second only to cases that have a statutory priority.

The court will discuss with the parties when the motion will be heard. However, the court's schedule is very tight, and there may not be very many options.

Case Number: 23SMCV03513 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Dept: I Please call the court after 8 am to obtain the court's tentative.

Case Number: 23SMCV05742 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Dept: I The issue is plaintiff's motion to enforce a settlement. The settlement in question called for the payment of money over time in return for a release. It also contained a non-disparagement clause that was expressly stated to be a material term. The clause stated that if plaintiff disparaged defendants, then they would be entitled to a return of their money but the release would remain in force.

According to defendants, after the agreement was signed plaintiff made a disparaging post concerning one of defendants' officers. Defendants asked that the post be removed and sent a cease and desist letter. At the last hearing, plaintiff suggested that she immediately took it down. The court was concerned that by sending a letter telling her to take down the post and implying that the failure to do so would jeopardize the settlement, defendants were impliedly saying that if plaintiff complied, the settlement would remain. Having re-read the letter, it really cannot be understood any other way. According to defendants, though, plaintiff did not take it down immediately. Indeed, it was not until almost two weeks later that the post came down. It