Chan vs. Blueray Aquatics LLC

Court must take the necessary steps to ensure its orders are complied with. The Court intends to impose at least monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and/or their counsel. Counsel should be prepared to address the appropriate amount of monetary sanctions and the appropriate type of additional sanctions. 102 Chan vs. Blueray MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE – DENIED Aquatics LLC, 2025- WITHOUT PREJUDICE 01524694 The unopposed application of attorney David A. DuBois to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant Blueray Aquatics, LLC is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving Attorney met the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 9.40 except that Moving Attorney did not: (1) state his residence pursuant to rule 9.40(d)(1), (2) establish proper service on the state Bar of California pursuant to rule 9.40(c)(1), and (3) state that he is not “[r]egularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California” pursuant to 9.40(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3).

The Court notes that Counsel need not provide his exact resident address but he must identify the state of his legal residence.

Moving attorney to give notice.

103 Danze vs. Danze, 2025- DEMURRERS - SUSTAINED 01522118 Defendants Marcelo Danze, Manuel Soto, and Alex Danze each filed a demurrer to the complaint filed by Plaintiff Kristina Danze. Each moving defendant demurs to all causes of action alleged against him. Plaintiff did not file opposition to any demurrer.

The complaint contains six causes of action: (1) breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant Marcelo, (2) fraudulent misrepresentation against all moving Defendants, (3) unjust enrichment against all moving Defendants, (4) fraudulent misrepresentation against Defendant Marcelo, (5) an accounting against all moving