Rebhan As Personal Representative Of The Estate Of, Patricia H Vs. Paul Md, Derek K

Case Number: 22STCV25510 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 32 PLEASE NOTE : Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that partys intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court . TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 32 HEARING DATE July 18, 2024 CASE NUMBER 22STCV25510 MOTION Motion to Continue Trial MOVING PARTIES Cross-Defendant Berry Bowl Los Angeles, LLC OPPOSING PARTY None MOTION Cross-Defendant Berry Bowl Los Angeles, LLC (Cross-Defendant) moves to continue trial and all related dates. No opposition has been filed. BACKGROUND This case involves injuries from a sliding gate that occurred on July 28, 2022. The complaint was filed on August 8, 2022. Trial was initially set for February 5, 2024. Defendants Viken Ouzounian, Raquel Ouzounian, VRCC York, LLC, VRCC Lincoln, LLC, Dons Auto repair & RV Center, and Dons Auto Repair & RV Center (Defendants) filed an answer on November 3, 2022. On January 11, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial to August 5, 2024, and granted leave to Defendants to file a cross complaint. On February 13, 2024, Defendants filed a cross-complaint for equitable indemnification, apportionment of fault, and express indemnity against Berry Bowl and Roes 1 to 25. On May 14, 2024, Cross-Defendant (sued erroneously as Berry Bowl), filed an answer to the cross complaint. ANALYSIS Legal Standard ¿Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.¿ ( In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)¿ A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.¿ ( Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)¿ California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial.¿ To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b).) Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: 1. The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 2. The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 3. The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 4. The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; 5. The addition of a new party if: A. The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or B. The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new partys involvement in the case; 6. A partys excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or 7. A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. 8. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: 1. The proximity of the trial date; 2. Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; 3. The length of the continuance requested ; 4. The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; 5. The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; 6. If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; 7. The courts calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; 8. Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; 9. Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; 10. Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and 11. Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) Discussion Here, Cross-Defendant seeks to continue trial and all related dates to May 22, 2025. Cross-Defendant argues the continuance is needed because it entered this case on May 14, 2024, and thus requires more time to conduct discovery. Additionally, it contends that Plaintiff is still treating injuries and that all parties have stipulated to the continuance. Cross-Defendant estimates that it will need 40 to 60 days to conduct written discovery and 3 to 5 months to receive Plaintiffs subpoenaed medical records. (Shaw Decl. ¶ 6.) As a result, Cross-Defendant requests 7 to 9 months to prepare a defense. However, Cross-Defendant does not explain its diligence in conducting discovery since May 2024, nor does it describe with specificity the outstanding discovery. Accordingly, Cross-Defendant does not justify the need for a lengthy continuance. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part Cross-Defendants motion to continue trial. The Final Status Conference is continued to January 16, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Trial is continued to January 30, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. All discovery and motion deadlines are associated with the new trial date. Cross-Defendant shall give notice of this order, and file a proof of service of such.

Case Number: 24CHCV00967 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: F43 Dept. F43 Date: 7-16-24 Case #24CHCV00967, Shi Pei Wu vs. Lowes Home Centers, LLC, et al. Trial Date: N/A DEMURRER WITH MOTION TO STRIKE MOVING PARTY: Defendant Lowes Home Centers, LLC RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Shi Pei Wu RELIEF REQUESTED Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike RULING : Demurrer and motion to strike are moot. SUMMARY OF ACTION This action was filed by Plaintiff Shi Pei Wu (Plaintiff) on March 20, 2024. On May 31, 2024, Defendant Lowes Home Centers, LLC, (Defendant) filed its demurrer with motion to strike for Plaintiffs complaint. Rather than file an opposition, Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint pursuant to CCP § 472 on July 2, 2024. The filing of the amended complaint moots Defendants demurrer and motion to strike. Moving party to give notice to all parties.

Case Number: 23STCV11541 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Dept: 32 PLEASE NOTE : Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that partys intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court . TENTATIVE RULING DEPT : 32 HEARING DATE : July 15, 2024 CASE NUMBER : 23STCV11541 MOTIONS : Motion to Compel Defendants Deposition MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Tamera Pinelo OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant Jorge Carlos Castro BACKGROUND Plaintiff Tamera Pinelo (Plaintiff) moves to compel Defendant Jorge Carlos Castros (Defendant) deposition. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes. No reply has been filed. LEGAL STANDARD If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . , without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponents attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document . . . described in the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) A motion under subdivision (a) [above] shall comply with both of the following: 1. The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. 2. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b).) If a motion is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of that party unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450 (g).) MEET AND CONFER The Declaration of Sayeh M. Dayen, Plaintiffs counsel, shows an effort to coordinate Defendants deposition with Defendants counsel since November 2023. DISCUSSION On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff asked for available dates for Defendants deposition but received no response. (Dayen Decl. ¶ 34.) On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff served a deposition notice set for January 8, 2024. ( Id. ¶ 4, Exh. C.) Defendant objected on December 29, 2023 because the date was unilaterally set. ( Id. , Exh. D.) On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff served a second deposition notice set for March 4, 2024. ( Id. ¶ 4, Exh. E.) On February 26, 2024, Defendant objected to the second deposition notice and informed Plaintiff he was available for various dates in March via teleconference. Plaintiff then asked for the basis for the teleconference deposition but received no response. ( Id. ¶ 7, Exh. G.) In opposition, Defendant contends that the motion is moot since he has agreed to appear for an in-person deposition on August 13, 2024. (Renaud Decl. ¶ 15, Exh. K.) Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. No reply has been filed. Based on the information above, because Defendant served timely objections, and has now agreed to appear at a noticed deposition, the motion to compel is denied. The Court declines to award monetary sanctions to Defendant since he has not shown a statutory basis under section 2025.450. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to compel Defendants deposition is DENIED. Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Courts ruling and file a proof of service of such.

23CV01706 BAKER v. FUTURE MOTION (UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF BAKER’S MOTION TO APPOINT SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST The unopposed motion is granted. Brittany Baker, plaintiff’s surviving spouse, is appointed plaintiff’s successor in interest in this action. Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

Case Number: 20STCV25026 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 48 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT C. R., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 20STCV25026 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PETITION TO APPROVE MINORS COMPROMISE Dept. 48 8:30 a.m. July 16, 2024 Claimant C.R., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, L Mayra N. Rodriguez, has agreed to settle his claims against Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District, Luis Rodriguez-Cazares, and Karen Fattal in exchange for $139,500.00. Of this amount, $726.47 is allocated for a Medi-Cal lien, $55,800.00 is allocated for attorney fees, and $27,351.68 is allocated for costs and expenses, leaving a balance of $55,621.90 for Claimant. If approved, the funds will be deposited into a blocked account, subject to withdrawal only upon authorization of the court. Court approval is required for all settlements of a minors claim. (Prob. Code, §§ 3500, 3600, et seq .; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) The Court has reviewed the proposed settlement and cannot find that it is fair and reasonable at this time. Although Claimants guardian agreed to pay up to 45% of any settlement as attorney fees and all costs and expenses (Petition, Ex. 17(a)), the $55,800.00 in attorney fees and $27,351.68 in costs and expenses are a combined 59.6% of the total settlement amount. After all expenses, Claimant will receive only about 39.8% of the total settlement amount. At the hearing, counsel should be prepared to more thoroughly address the factors of California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(b) to justify such a high amount of attorney fees and expenses. Otherwise, the Court is inclined to deny the petition without prejudice. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar. Dated this 16th day of July 2024 Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court

HG20062148: Castellanos-Claudio VS Rizzo-Gutierrez 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside Notice of Settlement and Request to Re-Set case for Trial; filed by Wendy Castellanos-Claudio (Plaintiff) in Department 517 Tentative Ruling - 07/17/2024 Karin Schwartz The Motion re: PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND SET THE CASE FOR TRIAL filed by Wendy Castellanos- Claudio on 06/05/2024 is Granted. The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the notice of settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiff did not provide her counsel with express authority to settle this case for the amount previously agreed upon during the February 2024 mediation. (Masihi Dec. Paras. 7-8.) Thus, settlement has not been effectuated. The 2/13/24 Notice of Settlement is set aside. Parties are ORDERED TO APPEAR to re-set trial and pre-trial dates. HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing. BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA HG20062148: Castellanos-Claudio VS Rizzo-Gutierrez 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside Notice of Settlement and Request to Re-Set case for Trial; filed by Wendy Castellanos-Claudio (Plaintiff) in Department 517 Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812 Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose) Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812

Case Number: 24SMCV02124 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: M CASE NAME: Berg v. Wright Medical Technology Inc., et al. CASE NO.: 24SMCV02124 MOTION: Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice HEARING DATE: 7/17/2024 LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 9.40 provides that an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear pro hac vice in this State by way of written application upon due notice to all interested parties, as well as service on the State Bar in San Francisco with payment of a $50.00 fee, so long as that attorney is not a resident of California, does not work in California and does not perform regular or substantial business, professional or other activities in the State. The written application must provide the following information: (1) The applicant's residence and office address; (2) The courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) That the applicant is a licensee in good standing in those courts; (4) That the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) The title of each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and (6) The name, address, and telephone number of the active licensee of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record. (CRC Rule 9.40(d).) ANALYSIS Counsel George E. McLaughlin applies for admission pro hac vice in order to represent Plaintiff James Berg. Counsel provides all the required information. (CRC Rule 9.40.) The Court will allow counsels admission pro hac vice. That said, the Court notes that admission pro hac vice is not a right. Counsel states that he has represented clients in four other California cases in the preceding two years. In light of this frequency of representation, further pro hac vice applications may be appropriately denied at the discretion of the court. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Case Number: 22STCV29729 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 27 Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27 ¿ ¿¿ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Hearing Date: 7/16/2024 at 1:30 p.m. ¿¿ CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV29729 HAWK MCFADZEN vs. CITY OF LONG BEACH et al. Moving Party: Defendant City of Long Beach Responding Party: Unopposed ¿¿ Notice: Sufficient ¿¿ ¿¿ Ruling: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL IS GRANTED On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present case. On May 21, 2024, Defendant City of Long Beach filed a motion for summary judgment. The current trial date is September 6, 2024. The motion for summary judgment is scheduled to be heard on March 19, 2025. Defendant requests a trial continuance to sometime in June so its MSJ can be heard. Numerous courts of appeal have held that a trial court cannot refuse to consider a motion for summary judgment that is timely filed. "A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment filed within the time limits of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 437c. [Citation.] Local rules and practices may not be applied so as to prevent the filing and hearing of such a motion." ( Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529 ); accord First State Inc. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 324, 330 [invalidating case management order to the extent it precluded filing motions pursuant to section 437c ]; Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, 923 [local court rule that "require a party filing a complex summary judgment motion to file the motion six months before the date set for trial is void and unenforceable because it is inconsistent with section 437c"].) As the Sentry court explained: "We are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment. However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions." ( Sentry , supra, at p. 530.) Defendant filed and served its motion for summary judgment on May 21, 2024, with the trial date set for September 6, 2024. The motion was served more than 105 days prior to trial; therefore, it was timely filed, and the Court cannot refuse to hear a timely filed motion for summary judgment. The new Trial Date is set for June 2, 2025 , at 8:30 a.m. The Final Status Conference is continued to May 19, 2025 , at 10:00 a.m. The only basis to continue the trial date is so the motion for summary judgment can be heard. Defendant has not shown good cause to have the fact discovery cut-off follow the new trial date. Should the parties wish to reopen fact discovery, they can do so either through stipulation or motion. All other case-related deadlines, including expert discovery, will follow the new trial date. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, ¿ the party must send an email to the court at ¿ sscdept27@lacourt.org ¿ with the Subject line SUBMIT followed by the case number. ¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsels contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. Unless ¿ all ¿ parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. ¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.