DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
Activate Clean Energy, LLC vs. DMX Engineering, LLC·orange·Civil·Contract
Hearing 3 months agoCONTINUED

Activate Clean Energy, LLC, and Rasa Energy, Inc. v. DMX Engineering, LLC

Motion to Modify Order

Hearing date
May 27, 2026
Department
N16
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 1, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffActivate Clean Energy, LLC
PlaintiffRasa Energy, Inc.
DefendantDMX Engineering, LLC
Cross-DefendantDavid Martin
Cross-DefendantWilliam Wismann
Cross-DefendantRobert Kendall
Cross-DefendantAnthony Buda
Cross-DefendantErnest Lee

Attorneys

Maggi L. Evertfor Plaintiff
Saundra K. Woottonfor Plaintiff

Ruling

Here, the scope of the Arbitration Agreement is very broad and encompasses the claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant. In covering “all disputes, claims or disagreements arising from or relating to this Agreement, the employment relationship between the parties or the establishment or termination of the employment relationship that are not resolved via mutual agreement,” the Agreement covers Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant. (Fajardo Dec., ¶¶ 6-7 and Ex. E; Treasure Dec., at ¶ 4 and Ex. C.)

Plaintiff did not oppose the motion and thus provides no basis to deny the motion to compel arbitration.

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted, and the action stayed, pending the completion of arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)

An ADR Review Hearing is set for 9:00 a.m. on September 22, 2026, in Department N16.

Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.

5 Activate Clean TENTATIVE RULING: Energy, LLC vs. DMX Motion to Modify Order Engineering, LLC Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Activate Clean Energy, LLC, and Rasa Energy, Inc.; and Cross-Defendants David Martin, William Wismann, Robert Kendall, Anthony Buda, and Ernest Lee move to modify this court’s 07/02/2025 order granting foreign attorney Maggi L. Evert’s motion to appear pro hac vice, to reflect Attorney Saundra K. Wootton will be associated counsel of record. For the following reasons, the motion is CONTINUED to July 1, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this Department.

No later than nine (9) court days before the continued hearing, Moving Parties shall file a supplemental brief addressing to what extent notice must be provided on the California State Bar prior to any modification of the order granting Attorney Ebert’s pro hac admission and/or whether the California State Bar requires a separate or renewed application for pro hac vice admission. (See Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 9.40.)

No later than five (5) court days before the continued hearing, Defendants may file any opposition or response.

Moving party to give notice.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share