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 appears that defendants' time line is the more accurate based on documentary evidence. Plaintiff might suggest that she could not take it down because she was dealing with medical issues. That might be, but under the agreement, it should never have been put up in the first place. The delay, for whatever reason, is significant.

The settlement agreement is a contract like any other. It appears that plaintiff breached the contract by posting the video that disparaged defendants. That would be a material breach and would excuse defendants from further performance. The court need not, and does not, determine definitively whether a cause of action would lie against either party for breach, but the court does believe that defendants' showing is that it likely would be so considered. Accordingly, the motion to enforce the settlement by requiring defendants to continue to pay additional sums is DENIED. The court will not go further and opine as to what might or might not be the consequence of anything that might happen in the future or is not now before the court.

Case Number: 24SMCV05474 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Dept: I Please call the courtroom after 8 am to obtain the court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 26SMCV00232 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Dept: I The court will inquire. "Premises" is apparently a defined term, but the court cannot find the definition in the lease. The court does note that the part of the "Parking" clause seems to support plaintiff's position. The court will CONTINUE the hearing to next week to allow defendant to file a preliminary opposition. But unless there is some evidence that the garage is communal space, plaintiff makes a good point. | Home -->)" -->