PLTF'S AMENDED PET & CLAIM FOR INDEMNITY & CONTRIB April 24, 2008 (2024)

Case

JOE PONCE JR VS. KEVIN ROBLES

Aug 15, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |153-355738-24

Case

Talor GonzalezvsJames Gordon

Aug 16, 2024 |Pierson, Don |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |2024-005939-1

Case

BILLY HAMILTON JR VS. ANNA ELIZABETH ROMENO

Aug 19, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |067-355884-24

Case

SYE KHAMSENGXAY VS. KAMRA RHODES

Aug 16, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |017-355824-24

Case

DD BENSON DEVELOPMENT, LLC VS. TEXAS DG GUNITE, LLC

Aug 15, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Construction |141-355764-24

Case

ALISSA WILSON VS. BRIAN D. HOUK

Aug 16, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |048-355869-24

Case

SERGIO RODRIGUEZ MENDEZ VS. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Aug 14, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |236-355682-24

Case

EMILY PAULSEN VS. GERID SPRESSER

Aug 15, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |236-355750-24

Case

Crystal ValenciavsPhillip Drawdy

Aug 16, 2024 |Hrabal, Mike |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |2024-005954-3

Ruling

AVA NAEINI VS CONFLUENT INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Aug 21, 2024 |22STCV21275

Case Number: 22STCV21275 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: 68 Dept. 68 Date: 8-21-24 Case No: 22STCV21275 Trial Date: Not Set DOCUMENT PRODUCTION MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Confluent, Inc. RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Ava Naeini RELIEF REQUESTED: Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiff Ava Naieini, alleges gender, ethnic and religious discrimination as an Iranian, Muslim female working in computer/software technology consulting. Plaintiff maintains management responsible for the series of events leading to the subject action is the result of their love of alcohol and impaired judgment, or hidden sexual and mental disorders that lead to lower level of awareness, understanding and judgment where subordinates have to quit, or suffer and tolerate oppression. Said behavior was also apparently as a means of disguising technical incompetence and narcissism. The complaint includes denied time off, payment for only economy class seats with not enough legroom on extensive coast to coast flights. Plaintiff represents to obtain counsel, but due to national origin, racial battles in the country and the subconscious bias of the majority of bias of the majority of attorney that do not yet acknowledge systematic issues as shifts have not occurred yet leads to lawyers refusal to take on the subject action. Plaintiff also contends improper legal rulings striking out prior iterations of the complaint and unfair treatment of Plaintiff in pro per has allowed Defendant to effectively block any discovery over the last 15 months of attempting to prosecute the subject action. On June 29, 2022, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a complaint for 1. Economic Duress 2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 3. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 4. Discrimination in Violation of Govt Code 12940 Et Seq. 5. Harassment In Violation of Govt Code 12940, et seq. 6. Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940 et seq. 7. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940(K) 8. Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy 9. Defamation 10. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith And Fair Dealing 11.False Promises 12.Promissory Fraud 13.Negligence 14.Negligent Misrepresentation 15.Negligent Retention Of Employees. On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff, in pro per filed a first amended complaint for 1. Economic Duress 2. Recission of Contract 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 5. Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation of Government Code section 12940 6. Harassment In Violation of Govt Code 12940, et seq. 7. Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940 et seq. 8. Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy 9. Discrimination in Violation of Government Code section 12940, et. seq. 10. Defamation 11. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 12. Negligence 13. Negligent Supervision of Employees 14. Workplace Harassment. On October 6 and 10, 2022, the case was transferred from Department 32 (personal injury) to independent calendar court, Department 68. On November 23, 2022, the court sustained the unopposed demurrer of Defendant to the first amended complaint with 60 days leave to amend. The court also granted the unopposed motion to strike with 60 days leave to amend. Although Plaintiff submitted a proposed second amended complaint on November 14, 2023, the court declined to consider the second amended complaint at the time of ruling on the demurrer. On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint for 1. Economic Duress 2. Recission of Contract 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 5. Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation of Government Code section 12940 6. Harassment In Violation of Govt Code 12940, et seq. 7. Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940 et seq. 8. Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy 9. Discrimination in Violation of Government Code section 12940, et. seq. 10. Defamation 11. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith And Fair Dealing 12. Negligence 13. Negligent Hiring and Supervision of Employees 14. Workplace Harassment. On March 21, 2023, the court ruled on the demurrer to the 92 page second amended complaint: the court sustained the demurrer to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, twelfth and thirteenth causes of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation of Government Code section 12940, Negligence, and Negligent Hiring and Supervision of Employees, Harassment In Violation of Govt Code 12940, et seq., without leave to amend; and, sustained the demurrer to the seventh, eighth, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth causes of action for Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940 et seq., Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy, Defamation, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith And Fair Dealing, and, Workplace Harassment, with 20 days leave to amend. The court granted the motion to strike Punitive Damages with leave to amend, and the Demand to Recover for Spine Injuries and the Like and Irrelevant and Improper Statement without leave to amend. On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff in pro per filed a third amended complaint for 1. Economic Duress 2. Recission of Contract 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 5. Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation of Government Code section 12940 6. Harassment In Violation of Govt Code 12940, et seq. 7. Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940 et seq. 8. Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy 9. Discrimination in Violation of Government Code section 12940, et. seq. 10. Defamation 11. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 12. Negligence 13. Negligent Hiring and Supervision of Employees 14. Workplace Harassment, with strikeouts on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, twelfth, and thirteenth causes of action. The third amended complaint lacks page numbering, but totals 87 pages. On the November 14, 2023, hearing on the demurrer to the third amended complaint, the court first noted the lack of pagination and ordered compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 2.109. On the substance, the court considered an argument under the statute of limitations, whereby the court found all challenged claims other than the tenth cause of action for defamation were timely filed and relate back to the original complaint filing date. The court sustained the demurrer to the tenth cause of action for defamation without leave to amend on grounds of the statute of limitations. On the remainder of the operative complaint, the court found no material changes to the previously challenged cause of action, and sustained the demurrer with leave to amend to the seventh, eighth, ninth, eleventh, and fourteenth causes of action for Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940 et seq., Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy, Discrimination in Violation of Government Code section 12940, et. seq., Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Workplace Harassment. The court also granted the motion to strike the claim for punitive damages, demand to recover for spine injuries and the like, and irrelevant and improper Statement without leave to amend. On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a fourth amended complaint for 1. Economic Duress 2. Recission of Contract 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 5. Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation of Government Code section 12940 6. Harassment In Violation of Govt Code 12940, et seq. 7. Retaliation in Violation of Govt Code 12940 et seq. 8. Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy 9. Discrimination in Violation of Government Code section 12940, et. seq. 10. Defamation 11. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 12. Negligence 13. Negligent Hiring and Supervision of Employees 14. Workplace Harassment, with strikeouts on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, tenth, twelfth, and thirteenth causes of action. The fourth amended complaint totals 72 pages of allegations, with 39 pages of new exhibits including exhibit 4 and exhibit 5 constituting the Defendants section in paragraphs 1-11 and the factual background section in paragraphs 13-41, which are not incorporated into the introductory paragraphs of the operative complaint. On January 10, 2024, the court sent notice of case reassignment to the new judicial officer. The court held a case management conference on March 7, 2024. Plaintiff was present; Defendant was not. On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a 170.6 peremptory challenge, which was rejected on April 23, 2024, as untimely. On April 24, 2024, Plaintiff in pro per, filed a 170.1/170.3 challenging impartiality, asserting a lack of qualification, and maintain a violation of the law. On April 29, 2024, the court issued an order striking the statement of disqualification. On May 9, 2024, the court sustained the demurrer Confluent, Inc. to all remaining causes of action in the fourth amended complaint without leave to amend. RULING: Moot/Off-Calendar. Defendant Confluent, Inc. moves to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents served on Defendant Confluent, Inc. The motion was filed on May 7, 2024. On May 9, 2024, the court sustained the demurrer of Confluent, Inc. to all remaining causes of action without leave to amend. The court therefore finds the motion MOOT and the takes the motion off-calendar. Plaintiff to give notice to all parties.

Ruling

UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY VS. BERNARDINO PONCE ZAMORA ET AL

Aug 19, 2024 |CGC23604070

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Monday, August 19, 2024, Line 6. DEFENDANT U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA's Motion For Order Discharging It From Liability And For Costs. Off calendar per 7/17/24 notice of assignment of case to arbitration. =(302/RBU)

Ruling

VARTAN MINASSIAN VS LEVON AYRAPETOV, ET AL.

Aug 21, 2024 |23CHCV00608

Case Number: 23CHCV00608 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: F51 Dept. F-51¿¿ Date: 8/21/24 Case #23CHCV00608 LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT DEPARTMENT F-51 AUGUST 20, 2024 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 23CHCV00608 ¿ Motion Filed: 5/8/24 ¿ MOVING PARTY: Defendants William Josephson; and Catherine Flannery (collectively, Defendants) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Vartan Minassian (Plaintiff) NOTICE: OK¿ ¿ RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on Plaintiffs complaint. TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE: Defendants request for judicial notice is granted. BACKGROUND This is a personal injury action in which Plaintiff alleges that on 2/23/21, while he was walking his small dog on a leash along Marva Avenue in the City of Granada Hills, two of Defendants vicious dogs, charged and attacked Plaintiff without provocation when he passed Defendants residence located at 12523 Marva Avenue, Grana Hills, California. (Compl. ¶¶ 1112.) The subject dogs were owned by defaulted defendants Levon Ayrapetov and Jessica Ayrapetov, who resided at the subject property. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Defendants owned the subject property. (Id. at ¶ 15.) On 2/22/23, Plaintiff filed his complaint against all four Defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Strict Liability (against the Ayrapetov defendants; and (2) Negligence (against Defendants). On 10/13/23, Defendants filed their answer. On 5/7/24, default was entered against the Ayrapetov defendants. On 5/8/24, Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment. On 7/24/24, Plaintiff filed his opposition. On 8/14/24, Defendants filed their reply. // // ANALYSIS The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c) requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings. (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 65, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381382.) As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 15191520.) Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 163.) Courts liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party. (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.¿(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) A. Negligence Plaintiffs sole cause of action against Defendants is Negligence. To state a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must allege the elements of (1) the existence of a legal duty of care, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) proximate cause resulting in an injury. (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) Here, Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants had a duty to properly own and maintain the subject property, and negligently and carelessly breached their duty/duties when they allowed the premises to exist in a condition which allowed the dog to exit the premises and viciously attack Plaintiff as he walked on a public sidewalk near the premises. (Compl. ¶¶ 2425.) Defendants argue that they, as landlords of the property, owed no duty of care to Plaintiff because they had no knowledge of the dogs or their dangerous propensities. (MSJ 5:1325, citing Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal. App.3d 504, Donchin v. Guerrero (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1834.) Specifically, Defendants argue that they do not own the dogs that alleged to have attacked Plaintiff and have never had charge, care, custody, or control of the dogs, including on the day in question. (MSJ 3:2728.) Defendants further argue that they did not have any knowledge of the ARAYPETOVs dogs alleged history of dangerous propensities prior to the alleged attack, nor that the dogs would cause injury to another. (Id. at 4:24.) Defendants support their arguments with their own sworn declarations, as well as the lease agreement they entered into with the Ayrapretov defendants, showing a pet policy stating that any pets kept on the premises required Defendants prior written consent, and at the time of signing, no pets were listed on the lease. (Ex. A to Decl. of Catherin Flannery; Ex. A to Decl. of William Josephson.) Defendants argue that the ARYAPETOVS at no time prior to or after the execution of the Lease, disclosed to WILLIAM that they owned any animals, including dogs, or that any such animals were to being kept on the subject premises. (MSJ 4:68; Flannery Decl. ¶¶ 911; Josephson Decl. ¶¶ 911.) Although the lease that the ARYAPETOVS signed stated that no animal or pet shall be kept on or about the Premises without Landlords prior written consent at no time prior to or following the execution of the Lease did the ARYAPETOVS obtain written consent from WILLIAM to keep dogs on the subject premises. Since WILLIAM and CATHERINE did not have any knowledge of the ARAYPETOVs dogs existence on the subject premises, they could not know of the dogs alleged history of dangerous propensities prior to the alleged attack, nor that the dogs would cause injury to another. (MSJ 6:613.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants have met their initial burden to negate an essential element of Plaintiffs negligence cause of action. The burden thus shifts to Plaintiff to produce substantial evidence showing that a triable issue of fact exists. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that a triable issue remains because during discovery, Defendants produced a text message chain between Josephson and Levon Ayrapetov, purporting to show that Defendants are evidently very familiar with the Subject Dogs; going on to state that the dog is in bad shape. (Opp. 8:1415.) As a preliminary matter, and as Defendants observe, here, Plaintiff has only submitted to the Court his Points & Authorities which articulates Plaintiffs Argument for denial of the instant Motion. Plaintiff has failed to provide this court with a Separate Statement. As such, it is impossible for Plaintiff to demonstrate that there is a dispute as to any material fact. (Reply 3:47.) A separate statement is required in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment to ease the trial courts burden and put the moving party on notice of the evidence which is disputed by respondent. (Kojababian v. Genuine Home Loans, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 408, 419; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.130(e)(2).) Here, Plaintiff has failed to file any separate statement with his opposition as required by the California Rules of Court, and thus has failed to dispute any of the facts or evidence set forth by Defendants. As Plaintiff has failed to provide or introduce, any concrete evidence or circ*mstantial evidence which would contradict the facts alleged in Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs argument that Defendants likely had actual knowledge of the subject dog prior to the incident is little more than speculation and conjecture. (Reply 4:610.) The sole evidence proffered by Plaintiff to show Defendants knowledge of the subject dogs dangerous propensities is a text exchange, dated after the subject incident, wherein Josephson states that the dog is in bad shape. (Ex. A to Opp.) Therefore, even if Plaintiff had satisfied the procedural requirement by filing an opposing separate statement, the Court agrees with Defendants that the proffered text messages alone fail to create a triable issue of material fact. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his responsive burden to show that a triable issue exists as to whether Defendants are liable to him pursuant to Civil Code section 3342. The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has provided no facts that contradict the facts outlined in Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, nor has he provided any reasonable inferences which would raise a triable issue of fact in this matter. (Reply 3:1922.) Accordingly, the motion is granted as to Plaintiffs negligence cause of action. B. Additional Discovery If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment & that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (h).) A declaration in support of a request for continuance under section 437c, subdivision (h) must show: (1) the facts to be obtained are essential to opposing the motion; (2) there is reason to believe such facts may exist; and (3) the reasons why additional time is needed to obtain these facts. (Cooksey v. Alexakis (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 246, 254 [internal quotations omitted].) Here, Plaintiff argues that Defendants prematurely and wrongfully filed their Motion as discover[y] is ongoing and Plaintiff is attempting to locate the remaining defendants as to procure their depositions, and circ*mstantial evidence of Defendants actual knowledge of Subject Dog and Subject Dogs propensities. (Opp. 4:1517.) In light of Defendants incomplete discovery responses, Plaintiff intends to serve a second set of special interrogatories and request for production of documents on or before July 23, 2024. (Id. at 5:13.) Plaintiff therefore contends that due to discovery being incomplete, neither Plaintiff nor Defendants can definitively say facts essential to justify the opposition do not exist. (Id. at 7:2022.) However, as Defendants note in reply, there is no Declaration submitted by Plaintiffs counsel which articulates the reasons for seeking a continuance, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h). (Reply 8:12.) Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff contends that Defendants 4/12/24 discovery responses were lacking in any way, Plaintiff failed to move for appropriate relief under the Civil Discovery Act. Defendants further note that at no time prior to filing Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment on or around July 24, 2024, did Plaintiffs Counsel attempt to meet and confer with Defense counsel regarding the alleged issues with Defendants discovery responses raised in Plaintiffs Opposition. (Reply 4:1822.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to justify a continuance of the instant motion based on a lack of necessary facts yet to be discovered. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs request for any such continuance. CONCLUSION The motion is granted. Defendants to file Judgment within 10 days.

Ruling

Andres Martinez vs Koua Yang

Aug 20, 2024 |23CECG04147

Re: Martinez v. Yang et al. Superior Court Case No. 23CECG04147Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 (Dept. 501)Motion: by Plaintiff to Compel Further Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set OneTentative Ruling: To deny. If oral argument is timely requested, such argument will be entertained on August21, 2024, at 3:30 p.m.Explanation: The motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a declarationshowing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues outside of court.(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); see Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294 [reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entailssomething more than bickering with opposing counsel].) Three times before plaintiff filed the motion to compel (on 5/9, 5/16 and 5/21/24)defense counsel emailed proposed amended responses, asking if they would resolveplaintiff’s concerns. (See Garcia Decl., Exhs. 2 and 3.) There does not appear to havebeen any response from plaintiff’s counsel to these efforts, and plaintiff’s counsel evenfailed to include the 5/9 and 5/16 emails with the moving papers’ meet and conferexhibits, misleading the court about the nature and extent of the parties’ meet andconfer efforts. Again on 7/10/24, the day before the instant motion was filed, defensecounsel submitted the further amended responses and advised that verifications wouldbe forthcoming, once signed by defendants. (Garcia Decl., Exh. 5.) Verifications of theproposed amended responses were provided on 7/17/24. (Garcia Decl., Exhs. 6 and 7.)While maintaining many objections, the supplemental responses provided additionalsubstantive responses notwithstanding the objections. Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel’s written meet and confer communications largelyfailed to clearly set forth the deficiencies in the responses, making it difficult for defensecounsel to adequately respond. In the Pretrial Discovery Conference order granting plaintiff permission to file theinstant motion, the court directed that “[c]ounsel must continue to meet and confer inperson or by phone in advance of any motion to compel.” (See 6/21/24 Minute Order.)Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration makes no mention of further in person or telephonic meetand confer, in disregard of the court’s order. The court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated a reasonable and good faithattempt to resolve the discovery dispute informally. Additionally, the motion is in large part mooted by the service of supplementalresponses. The only demands which did not receive a supplemental response are nos.11, 24, 29 and 35. No further response to demand no. 11 is warranted, as plaintiff’s counseldid not address the demand in meet and confer. This demand should not have beenincluded in the motion to compel. The response to no. 24 states that any responsivedocuments were already produced by plaintiff in pre-litigation discovery. It is unclear whyplaintiff would move to compel further response and production where plaintiff is alreadyin possession of the responsive documents. Moreover, it is unclear why plaintiff would beseeking from defendant’s plaintiff’s past medical records, which would obviously be inthe possession and control of plaintiff and not defendants. This demand is rathernonsensical, given the parties respective positions in this litigation. The response todemand no. 29 is Code-compliant, representing that a diligent search and inquiry hasbeen made, and that defendants “cannot comply with this demand because he hasnever had possession of the requested information and does not know if any exist.” (SeeCode Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) As to demand no. 35, the moving papers fail to address theactual objections raised, instead addressing other objections that were not made inresponse to the demand. This further demonstrates the lack of good faith in bringing thismotion. Accordingly, in addition to the failure to adequately meet and confer, the courtfinds the motion mooted as to most demands at issue, and lacking in merit as to thedemands for which no supplemental responses were served. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: DTT on 8/19/2024 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)

Ruling

HIBBS, ET AL VS. AGOOT, ET AL

Aug 19, 2024 |CVPM22-0199094

HIBBS, ET AL VS. AGOOT, ET ALCase Number: CVPM22-0199094This matter is on calendar for status of dismissal. The Court notes that the matter is at issue and the parties planto mediate. The matter is continued to Monday, October 7, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for reviewregarding status of mediation and trial setting. If the matter does not resolve in mediation, the Court intends to seta trial date no later than April 29, 2025. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding proposed dates fortrial and be prepared to set a trial date at the next hearing. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Ruling

Alexander Family Trust vs. Simao, et al.

Aug 19, 2024 |23CV-0203196

ALEXANDER FAMILY TRUST VS. SIMAO, ET AL.Case Number: 23CV-0203196This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of settlement and trial setting. The previoustrial dates were vacated by the Court’s June 6, 2024 Order. Plaintiff’s claims against Safeco werebifurcated March 15, 2024, and trial of Plaintiffs claims against Safeco were to follow resolutionof the claims against the other Defendants. Case management statements have been filed, but it isunclear which parties, if any, have reached a settlement. At the last hearing on June 17, 2024,Counsel indicated that all parties except for Safeco had settled. However, notices of settlementand dismissals are not on file for any party. Additionally, Jacqueline Simao’s Cross-Complaint,filed November 13, 2023, against Allen & Roth and Lowe’s Home Improvement has not beenserved.The Court designates this matter a Plan II case and intends to set the matter for trial no later thanMarch 11, 2025. Defendants have posted jury fees, but Plaintiff has not. Plaintiff is granted 10days leave to post jury fees. A failure to post jury fees in that time will be deemed a waiver of theright to a jury. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with status ofsettlement as to Defendants Simao, Rayfifield and 2584 Reservoir Lane, and to discussavailable trial dates as to Defendant Safeco.

Ruling

YOCHONON BAITELMAN, ET AL. VS JOHN ALPHONSE MARASCO, ET AL.

Aug 19, 2024 |22STCV31294

Case Number: 22STCV31294 Hearing Date: August 19, 2024 Dept: 28 Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Yochonon Baitelman and Yochonon Baitelman on behalf of Mushka Baitelman, Rivka Baitelman and Esther Baitelman, minors, filed this action against Defendants John Alphonse Marasco (Marasco), Amie Jennet Morris (Morris), The Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD), and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. On March 22, 2024, Morris filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Marasco, LAFD, and Roes 1-10 for indemnity, declaratory relief, and apportionment of fault. On August 9, 2024, Defendant City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Fire Department (City), and Marasco filed an answer to the cross-complaint. On June 7, 2024, Defendants City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Fire Department (City), and Marasco filed an answer to Plaintiffs complaint. On June 27, 2024, the City filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Morris and Roes 1-10 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. On June 26, 2024, Morris filed an answer to the Citys cross-complaint. On July 26, 2024, Plaintiffs counsel, Jamie Lefkowitz, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Rivka Baitelman. The motion was set for hearing on August 19, 2024. COUNSELS REQUEST Plaintiffs counsel, Jamie Lefkowitz, asks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Rivka Baitelman. LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, provides: (a) Notice A notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051). (b) Memorandum Notwithstanding any other rule of court, no memorandum is required to be filed or served with a motion to be relieved as counsel. (c) Declaration The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1). (d) Service The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice may be by personal service, electronic service, or mail. (1) If the notice is served on the client by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either: (A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or (B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. (2) If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address. As used in this rule, current means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current. If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) applies. (e) Order The proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers. The order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. If no hearing date is presently scheduled, the court may set one and specify the date in the order. After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) DISCUSSION Counsels declaration does not use Judicial Council form MC-052 as California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c), requires. In addition, counsel has not served all the parties that have appeared in this action, as California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d), requires. The Court denies the motion. CONCLUSION The Court DENIES without prejudice Jamie Lefkowitz's motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Rivka Baitelman. Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Counsel is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

Ruling

DOE vs PERRIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Aug 20, 2024 |CVRI2303798

DOE vs PERRIS UNION HIGHCVRI2303798 Motion to CompelSCHOOL DISTRICT,Tentative Ruling:See above.

Document

CLARK, SHANKETEREA vs. SALDANA, MOCES

Nov 29, 2023 |MICHAEL GOMEZ |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202382348

Document

BENITEZ, AMANDA vs. DOE, JOHN

Dec 05, 2023 |CHRISTINE WEEMS |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |202383830

Document

MADERA, SEAN vs. JARRAH, MUHAMMAD AMMAN

Dec 04, 2023 |LATOSHA LEWIS PAYNE |TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE |TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE |202383675

Document

ARYA, MELANIE vs. DOE, JOHN/JANE

Dec 06, 2023 |DAWN ROGERS |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202384151

Document

MCGILBERT, CALLIE vs. RICHARDSON, DELANO

Dec 04, 2023 |ROBERT K. SCHAFFER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202383566

Document

Angelica Flores VS. National General Insurance Company

Apr 19, 2024 |Alberto Garcia |Injury or Damage - Motor Vehicle (OCA) |CL-24-1704-F

Document

AWOTE, BABAJIDE vs. ALARCON, RAUL

Aug 31, 2023 |KYLE CARTER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202363773

Document

WILPERS, RICHARD vs. LANDSTAR RANGER INC

Dec 04, 2023 |JACLANEL M. MCFARLAND |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202383330