Gabriel Aruwajoye, Et Al Plaintiff Vs. Michael Elmore, Et Al Defendant

GJETLEY VS. SANDOVAL Case Number: 23CV-0203634 Tentative Ruling on Discovery Motions: Defendant Gary Sandoval moves for an order deeming Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One admitted based on a lack of response from Plaintiff. In a separate motion, Defendant moves for an order compelling responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One. The motions were originally noticed for a hearing on June 10, 2024. On June 10, 2024, the Court continued the hearing to today’s date because Plaintiff Lester Gjetley had filed a document titled “Plaintiff Lester Gjetley Response to Motion and Discovery” that included a copy of what appear to be verified responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff was ordered to serve Defendant with these responses. It is unclear if that has occurred. On July 15, 2024, as directed by the Court, Defendant filed a Brief Statement Regarding Outstanding Discovery Issues. This Statement is not supported by evidence. There are procedural and evidentiary defects on both sides of these motions. The Court exercises its discretion to consider the merits of the motions despite these defects. A party has thirty days after service to respond to a Request for Production, Request for Admissions, Form Interrogatories, or Special Interrogatories. See CCP §§ 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a), and 2030.260(a). Not providing a timely response to propounded discovery results in a waiver of objections. CCP §§ 2031.300(a). 2033.280(a), and 2030.290(a). If a party to whom a discovery request is directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding discovery may move for an order compelling a response. CCP §§ 2031.300(b) and 2030.290(c). For Request for Admissions specifically, the party can move for an Order that the Request for Admissions be deemed admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” CCP § 2033.280(c). Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts. Requests for Admissions. Plaintiff filed verified response to Requests for Admissions, Set One on May 28, 2024. Plaintiff was ordered to serve these on Defendant. It is unclear whether Plaintiff did so as there is no proof of service. However, the Court made it clear in its June 10, 2024, tentative ruling that a response to Requests for Admissions, Set One had been filed. Even if these responses may have not been served prior to the June 10, 2024, hearing, they were filed and available in the court file. Defendant presented no argument regarding whether the Requests for Admissions responses were in substantial compliance. As Plaintiff filed verified responses prior to the hearing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for the Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One to be admitted. It is mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction on the party whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion. CCP § 2033.280(c). The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $585 which is comprised of a $60 filing fee and three hours of attorney time at $175 per hour. Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Answer Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Respond to Request for Production. Form Interrogatories. It appears from Defendant’s Statement filed on July 15, 2024 that verified responses were provided as Defendant wrote, “but his verified response to Form Interrogatory 11.0 omits any mention of this suit.” A lack of service of verified responses is what the original motion alleged. If Plaintiff has served verified responses and Defendant deems them to be insufficient, Defendant may file a motion compelling further responses after sufficient meet and confer efforts. In order for the Court to rule on such a motion, the Form Interrogatories and responses would need to be provided to the Court. As it appears that Plaintiff responded to Form Interrogatories, Set One, the Court DENIES this request as moot. If the Court is incorrect and Plaintiff did not serve responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Defendant may raise the issue at the hearing. Special Interrogatories. Verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One were filed by Plaintiff on May 28, 2024. As discussed above regarding the Requests for Admissions, these were in the court file. If Defendant deems the response to be insufficient, Defendant may file a motion compelling further responses after sufficient meet and confer efforts. As Plaintiff responded to Special Interrogatories, Set One, the Court DENIES this request as moot. Request for Production. It appears from Defendant’s Statement that Plaintiff has not formally responded to Request for Production, Set One but did provide some documents. Despite a partial production, Defendant maintains that many records in possession or available to Plaintiff have not been provided. The Court finds good cause for each of the categories listed in Request for Production, Set One. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to the Request for Production. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide a verified response to Request for Production, Set One and produce all responsive records within twenty days of the filing of the Notice of Entry of Order. Sanctions. CCP §§ 2031.300(c) and 2030.290(c) only provide for sanctions when an unsuccessful opposition is made, however, the Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even when no opposition was filed. CRC 3.1348. As it appears that Plaintiff has still not served a verified response to Request for Production, Set One, the Court finds that sanctions are appropriate. The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $410 which is comprised of a $60 filing fee and two hours of attorney time. The third hour requested is not awarded as time to attend the hearing has already been accounted for in Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming Truth of Facts. In the Statement filed by Defendant on July 15, 2024, Defendant requested that Plaintiff be ordered to sit for another deposition at Plaintiff’s expense. This request is not properly before the Court and will not be addressed. Defendant did not provide proposed Orders as required by Local Rule of Court 5.17(D). Defendant is to provide a proposed Order for each motion that is consistent with the Court’s ruling.

FCS057573 Motions for Contempt TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner’s “motions” for contempt are denied. No affidavit of the facts constituting any contempt has been presented to the court. The filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a contempt proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1211(a); Koehler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169; Oil Workers Int’l Union v. Superior Court (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 541.) Page 1 of 1

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT, CVSW2205101 GALLEPOSO VS WATKINS DEFAULT BY UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED in part. The default judgment is set aside since Defendant-in-Intervention has filed an Answer and is not in default and default judgment cannot be entered against any jointly liable Defendants. USAA has not established any basis to set aside the default against Defendant since that default is not binding on USAA and no judgment can be entered. The requests for sanctions are denied.

Re: Moralez v. Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center Superior Court Case No. 23CECG05231 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 (Dept. 503) Motion: Motions by Defendants ASFC, LLC, doing business as Sierra Vista Healthcare, and Aspen Skilled Healthcare, Inc. to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents and Things (all Set One), and for an Order Establishing Admissions as to Plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez and as to Plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez as Heir and Successor-in-Interest to Yolanda Moralez, and Request for Monetary Sanctions Tentative Ruling: To grant all motions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280.) Within 20 days of service of the order by the clerk, plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez as heir and successor- in-interest to Yolanda Moralez, shall serve objection-free responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and produce all responsive documents. The matters specified in defendants’ Requests for Admissions, Set One are deemed admitted, unless plaintiff serves, before the hearing, a proposed response to each set of the requests for admissions that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. To grant monetary sanctions against plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez in the amount of $1,755.00, payable within 20 calendar days from the date of service of the minute order by the clerk. Explanation: Defendants ASFC, LLC, doing business as Sierra Vista Healthcare, and Aspen Skilled Healthcare, Inc., propounded identical sets of discovery (including the 131 special interrogatories) on plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez individually, and on plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez as heir and successor-in-interest to Yolanda Moralez. Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to this discovery. All that needs to be established to support an order compelling initial responses to discovery is to show that the discovery was properly served, and that no responses were received by the due date. Failing to respond to discovery within the 30- day time limit waives objections to the discovery, including claims of privilege and “work product” protection. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, Subd. (a) [interrogatories] and 2031.300, Subd. (a) [document demands]; see Leach v. Sup.Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.) As for requests for admissions, the court must grant a motion to establish admissions “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) “If the party manages to serve its responses before the hearing, the court has no discretion but to deny the motion . . . . Everything, in short, depends on submitting responses prior to the hearing.” (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 393, 395-396, disapproved on another point in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973.) No evidence has been submitted that plaintiff has served code- compliant responses to the two sets of requests for admissions served on her. Therefore, all motions will be granted. However, the discovery at issue here was duplicative; it was served on plaintiff in her dual capacities as an individual (for the wrongful death cause of action) and as successor in interest to her now-deceased mother (as to the remaining causes of action). None of the discovery was tailored to any differences between plaintiff’s two capacities, but instead were completely identical, and because of this, could be called confusing.1 While defendants are allowed to propound duplicative discovery, the court is not required to double the sanctions for these efforts. Thus, this impacts the court’s consideration of defendants’ request for monetary sanctions. The court may refuse to issue monetary sanctions if it finds there are circumstances that would render sanctions “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, Subd. (c) [Interrogatories], 2031.300, Subd. (c) [Document demands].) Here, it would be unjust to grant sanctions in the amount requested. Defendants filed motions concerning four types of identical discovery propounded on plaintiff in each of her two capacities in this action. They divided these into two motions (so four motions total), one regarding the form and special interrogatories and document demands, and the other regarding the requests for admissions. So the attorney work was in drafting four motions. They asked for sanctions for one hour of legal research for each of the four motions, and three hours to prepare each of the substantially identical four motions, plus time for appearance at the hearing, plus filing fees. The court will allow a total of five hours for preparing these substantially identical motions at counsel’s stated hourly rate of $255/hour ($1,275.00) plus $480 for the motion fees paid, for a total of $1,755.00. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Tentative Ruling Issued By: jyh on 7/24/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date) 1 The 131 special interrogatories directed to plaintiff as an individual, in particular, were confusing and are arguably irrelevant if taken at face value (despite counsel’s “declaration of necessity pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.050) since they are written as if plaintiff, individually, alleged she was the victim of elder abuse, when she alleged her mother was the victim. These were not tailored to ask about plaintiff’s contentions regarding her individual, i.e., wrongful death damages. Alternately, if she regarded these (or had been instructed to regard these) as asking for answers about her mother’s injuries and damages, they would be simply duplicative of the special interrogatories propounded on her as decedent’s successor-in-interest.

LAWSON, ET AL. VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL. Case Number: CVPM21-0197195 This matter is on calendar for review regarding: 1) status of deposit of funds into blocked account for Jonnie Lloyd Lawson Stanley, 2) status of funding the special needs trust for Ravien Lawson, 3) status of Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise for Lou Ella Lawson (the Petition filed April 4, 2024 was stricken per the Court’s Order dated April 5, 2024 because Lou Ella Lawson is not a named party to the Complaint), 4) status of dismissal. Plaintiff has filed a status statement, indicating that additional time is needed to deposit funds and file confirmation of deposit of funds. However, Plaintiff incorrectly states the status regarding Lou Ella Lawson. The Court again notes that the Petition regarding Lou Ella Lawson filed April 4, 2024 was stricken. No Minor’s Compromise has been approved for Lou Ella Lawson. Orders to Deposit Funds have only been executed for Jonnie and Ravien. This matter is continued to Monday, August 26, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64 for review regarding status of the issues noted above. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Motion for an Order to Require an Undertaking for Costs Pursuant to Code CUNNINGHAM vs CVRI2301873 of Civil Procedure §1030 by PARDIS AMIRHOUSHMAND AMIRHOUSHMAND, RICHARD GARCIA Tentative Ruling: The Motion is taken off calendar by moving party.

S-CV-0050553 Dinnocenti, Mary Paulette vs. Sagora Senior Living, Inc. ** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouraged Appearance required.

LAWSON, ET AL. VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL. Case Number: CVPM21-0197195 This matter is on calendar for review regarding: 1) status of deposit of funds into blocked account for Jonnie Lloyd Lawson Stanley, 2) status of funding the special needs trust for Ravien Lawson, 3) status of Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise for Lou Ella Lawson (the Petition filed April 4, 2024 was stricken per the Court’s Order dated April 5, 2024 because Lou Ella Lawson is not a named party to the Complaint), 4) status of dismissal. Plaintiff has filed a status statement, indicating that additional time is needed to deposit funds and file confirmation of deposit of funds. However, Plaintiff incorrectly states the status regarding Lou Ella Lawson. The Court again notes that the Petition regarding Lou Ella Lawson filed April 4, 2024 was stricken. No Minor’s Compromise has been approved for Lou Ella Lawson. Orders to Deposit Funds have only been executed for Jonnie and Ravien. This matter is continued to Monday, August 26, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64 for review regarding status of the issues noted above. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.