Wyndham Palms Master Association Inc Vs. Cruz, Efrain Baez

Case Number: 23STCV27912 Hearing Date: July 26, 2024 Dept: 50 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 50 805 WOOSTER, LLC , Plaintiff, vs. BRETT HYMAN , et al ., Defendants. Case No.: 23STCV27912 Hearing Date: July 26, 2024 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Carlos A. LLoreda, Jr. of The Law Office of Carlos A. LLoreda, Jr. (Counsel) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant Brett Hyman. While Counsel has provided sufficient reason for withdrawal, Items 5, 6, and 7 of the proposed order (Form MC-053) are blank. If Counsel provides the Court with a revised order prior to the hearing, the Court will grant the motion.¿ Counsel is ordered to give notice of this order.¿ DATED: July 26, 2024 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: 21BBCV00739 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: P [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOHO PROPCO, LLCS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION This is an action arising from the alleged breach of a contract concerning construction of two apartment buildings, retail space, and subterranean parking. On August 19, 2021, Plaintiff Snyder Langston Residential, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Noho Propco LLC (NPL) and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Labor and Materials Furnished; (3) Foreclose Mechanics Lien; and (4) Statutory Violation of Civil Code sections 8810 et seq . On September 30, 2021, NPL filed an Answer to the Complaint. Also, on such date, NPL filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff for, among other causes of action, breach of contract, misrepresentation, and negligence. On October 26, 2021, this action was deemed related to One Silver Serve, Inc. v. Synder Langston Residential, LLC , LASC Case No. 20BBCV00846, which was filed on November 19, 2020. (10/26/21 Minute Order.) Case No. 20BBCV00846 was deemed the lead case. (10/26/21 Minute Order.) On January 18, 2022, NPL filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (FAXC) against Plaintiff alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (3) Negligence. On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against NPL alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Labor and Materials Furnished; (3) Foreclose Mechanics Lien; and (4) Statutory Violation of Civil Code sections 8810 et seq . On May 26, 2022, NPL filed the operative Second Amended Cross Complaint (SAXC) against Plaintiff; J.S. Egan Design, Inc.; Don E. Empakeris Architects; Jayco-Cal Engineering, Inc.; Kaplan Gehring McCarroll Architectural Lighting, Inc.; PE&C Civil Engineering, LLC; SQLA, Inc.; Sacharias Vorgias Consulting Electrical Engineering, Inc.; Burnett & Young Shoring Engineers, Inc.; John Labib & Associates, Structural Engineers; Vivian C. Tanamachi; Salamoff Design Studio, LLC; 6th Generation, Inc.; and Roes 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively, Cross-Defendants) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Negligence; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Negligence/Professional Negligence; (6) Express Indemnity; and (7) Equitable Indemnity/Apportionment. On November 9, 2022, Cross-Defendant Don E. Empakeris Architects filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff and Moes 1 through 50 alleging causes of action for: (1) Equitable/Implied Indemnity; (2) Contribution; (3) Apportionment of Fault; and (4) Declaratory Relief. On December 28, 2023, pursuant to requests for dismissal filed by NPL, the following Cross-Defendants were dismissed from the SAXC: John Labib & Associates, Structural Engineers; Salamoff Design Studio, LLC; Kaplan Gehring McCarroll Architectural Lighting, Inc.; Burnett & Young Shoring Engineers, Inc.; 6th Generation, Inc.; SQLA, Inc.; PE&C Civil Engineering, LLC; and J.S. Egan Design, Inc. On March 27, 2024, this action was reassigned to the Honorable Jared D. Moses sitting in Department P at Pasadena Courthouse effective April 2, 2024. On June 3, 2024, NPL filed and served the instant Motion to File a Third Amended Cross-Complaint. The motion is made on the grounds that NPL has claims for damages against the remaining Cross-Defendants that said Cross-Defendants dispute remain [sic] and have sought to file this Third Amended Cross-Complaint to be clear on the remaining damages sought in this action. (Not. of Mot. at p. 2:3-6.) As of July 25, 2024, the motion for leave to amend is unopposed. Any opposition was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) II. LEGAL STANDARD Civ. Proc. Code §473, subd. (a), allows courts to permit amendment of pleadings in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper. Motions for leave to amend are directed to the sound discretion of the judge: The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.... (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) However, the courts discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Citations.) The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. (Citation.) Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff's claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result. (Citation.) ( Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Courts will ordinarily not consider the validity of a proposed pleading; the preferred practice is to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings. ( Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) But a court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where the proposed pleading fails to state a cause of action and further amendment would be futile. ( Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 230-231.) Courts have discretion to deny leave to amend where delay in seeking amendment has prejudiced the other party. ( Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (b), requires that a motion for leave to amend be accompanied by a declaration stating why the amendment is necessary and proper, the effect of the amendment, when the facts giving rise to the amended declaration were discovered, and the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier. III. ANALYSIS In support of the motion, E. Scott Holbrook, Jr. (Holbrook) declares the following: this action was resolved with most parties in December 2023. (Holbrook Decl., ¶ 2.) Subsequently mediation has been held with one of the remaining cross-defendants with further mediation scheduled. (Holbrook Decl., ¶ 2.) NPL seeks to amend the [cross-complaint] to be clear that the claims [NPL] abandoned of $21,000,000 against Plaintiff . . . were abandoned because of, arose of, resulted from, occurred in connection with, and/or were related to the services provided by the Third Party Design Cross Defendants remaining in this action. (Holbrook Decl., ¶ 2.) Counsel states that it is now necessary to file a Third Amended Cross-Complaint to assure the remaining cross-defendants do not object to the damages claims as not being plead in an effort to exclude some of NPLs claims for damages claiming they were not alleged against the remaining cross-defendants. Mr. Holbrook then generally describes the proposed modifications from the SAXC to the Third Amended Cross-Complaint. (Holbrook Decl., ¶ 3(a)-(i).) The Court finds that the motion is procedurally improper and not compliant with California Rules of Court , Rule 3.1324. NPL has failed to state by page, paragraph, and line number, where the deleted or additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).) Additionally, the declaration of Mr. Holbrook in support of the motion does not state the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made sooner. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b).) Nevertheless, notwithstanding these procedural infirmities, the Court will permit the filing of the third amended cross-complaint. The motion is unopposed and there are rare occasions when principles of efficiency lead one to conclude that it is best not to exalt form over substance. IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based on the foregoing, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Noho Propco LLC s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. Defendant and Cross-Complainant Noho Propco LLC to give notice of this order. Dated: July 30, 2024 JARED D. MOSES JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

CV-23-003803 – TELO, SAJMIR vs CABRAL, LEVI – Defendants’ Motion to Compel Appearance and Testimony at Deposition and Production of Documents – DENIED, in part; HEARING REQUIRED. Defendants have failed to establish the Court’s authority to order disclosure of the requested records and testimony pursuant to Plaintiff’s property (the Bluff Creek property), as the provisions of Rev. & Tax Code § 408(e)(3) only authorize the Court to issue such an order in the context of a proceeding by a taxpayer challenging the assessment.  Therefore, the motion is DENIED as to the request concerning the Bluff Creek property. With regard to Defendant’s property (the Gomes Road property), it appears that the County Assessor is amenable to disclosure of the requested information, but it is unclear whether all responsive materials have been produced or whether the Assessor’s office has any remaining objections to be resolved in that regard. In addition, it is unclear whether the Assessor opposes the request for testimony relative to the Gomes Road property.  Therefore, counsel shall appear at the hearing to discuss these issues. THE COURT’S PHONE SYSTEM IS DOWN. If you desire a hearing, you must email your request to the court before 4:00 p.m. today. In addition, your email must list the email addresses of all counsel who will appear at the hearing. Upon receipt, the court will schedule a Zoom hearing.

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 24, 2024 line 5. DEFENDANT PAUL FRENKIEL, TIFFANY PINTOR DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as Plaintiff's complaint is uncertain. Plaintiff shall allege the scope of encroachment and the starting date of the encroachment (specifically before or after Plaintiff's house was torn down). Demurrer is otherwise overruled. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.

23CV02337 COX v. MROCZEK, et al. CONFIRMATION OF 6/28/24 ORDER TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF NONMONETARY STATUS The court has reviewed plaintiff’s Notification of Objection to and Disapproval of Any Proposed Order or Other Order: 1) Granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Complaint; or 2) Striking Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s objections merely go to the process by which parties engage on proposed orders; CRC 3.1312 has no impact on the power of the court to strike plaintiff’s amended complaint and dismiss this action. The court’s previous order of 6/28/24 granting defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s amended complaint is confirmed, as is dismissal of this action. Defendants are ordered to submit a formal dismissal order for the court’s signature. Page 1 of 2 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. Page 2 of 2

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 22, 2024 line 5. DEFENDANT ZACHARY HOWITT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Hearing Required. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.

Re: Arturo Rodriguez v. Ravdeep Singh Superior Court Case No. 23CECG04769 Hearing Date: July 25, 2024 (Dept. 502) Motion: Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike Tentative Ruling: To order the hearing off calendar, as no motion was filed for this hearing date, and it does not appear any notice was given to plaintiff of this hearing. Explanation: Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings against defendants’ answer, which was originally scheduled for March 28, 2024, but was continued to May 14, 2024, to allow plaintiff to correct defects in his proof of service of the motion. His motion was granted on May 14, 2024. On May 10, 2024, defendants filed a memorandum of points and authorities and four declarations in support of a demurrer, and these papers reflected a hearing date of May 14, 2024. However, defendants had not calendared a hearing for a demurrer, and instead were apparently attempting to use the date for plaintiff’s motion as a hearing date for their own motion. When defendants appeared for oral argument at this hearing, the court informed them that they did not have a motion on calendar, and they needed to obtain a hearing date from the court’s Law and Motion desk before filing moving papers. After this, defendants obtained a hearing date, but they did not file any moving papers for this hearing date. Perhaps defendants believed that the papers they filed on May 10, 2024, served as the moving papers for the July 25th hearing. This is incorrect. Those papers did not give plaintiff any notice of a hearing on July 25, 2024. Furthermore, there is no Notice of Motion included with the papers filed on May 10, 2024. Nor is there a proof of service of any moving papers on plaintiff for a hearing on July 25, 2024. The statement in the Declaration of June Waara that she verbally informed plaintiff of the hearing on July 25, 2024, does not make for service of the motion on plaintiff. If defendants desire a hearing on a demurrer to the complaint, they must obtain a hearing date from the Law and Motion clerk, and thereafter file moving papers properly indicating the date they obtained, which show timely and proper service of the motion on plaintiff. Even though defendants are self-represented, they are held to the same standards as attorneys and they must follow the rules of civil procedure. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.) Also, the declaration of non-party June Waara filed on defendants’ behalf on July 12, 2024 indicates that she met and conferred with plaintiff regarding the demurrer, which defendants are supposed to do. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41.) Ms. Waara’s status as a licensed and bonded Unlawful Detainer Assistant and Process Server does not give her any authority to meet and confer with plaintiff on defendants’ behalf. Ms. Waara should take care not to practice law without a license. 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: KCK on 07/23/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)

Case Number: 23STCV28108 Hearing Date: July 26, 2024 Dept: 47 Tentative Ruling Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47 HEARING DATE: July 26, 2024 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET CASE: Atlantic Management LLC v. Los Angeles Clinica Medica General Medical Center, Inc. CASE NO.: 23STCV28108 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE MOVING PARTY : Defendant Los Angeles Clinica Medica General Medical Center, Inc. RESPONDING PARTY(S) : Plaintiff Atlantic Management, LLC CASE HISTORY : · 11/15/23: Complaint filed. · 05/21/24: Dismissal entered without prejudice as to all parties and all causes of action. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: This is an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to timely vacate the premises after failing to exercise an option to renew or extend the commercial lease agreement between the parties. Defendant moves to consolidate this action with three other actions. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Motion to Consolidate is DENIED. DISCUSSION: Defendant to consolidate this action, Atlantic Management LLC v. Los Angeles Clinica Medica General Medical Center, Inc ., Case No. 23STCV28108, with two other unlawful detainer actions with the same title, Case Nos. 23STUD14911 and 24STCV11586, and with the civil action entitled Los Angeles Clinica Medica General Medical Center Inc. v. Atlantic Management LLC , Case No. 24STCV13007. Legal Standard for Consolidation When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay . (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a), bold emphasis added.) Requests for Judicial Notice Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) the Request for Dismissal in this action and (2) the Request for Dismissal in the identically titled action with Case No. 23STUD14911. Plaintiffs request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) (court records). Procedural Requirements A motion to consolidate must satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 3.350, which provides, in relevant part: (a) Requirements of motion (1) A notice of motion to consolidate must: (A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. (2) The motion to consolidate: (A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case; (B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a).) Under Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(g), cases must be related into the same department prior to consolidation. Defendant seeks to consolidate this action, Atlantic Management LLC v. Los Angeles Clinica Medica General Medical Center, Inc. , Case No. 23STCV28108, with two other unlawful detainer actions with the same title, Case Nos. 23STUD14911 and 24STCV11586, and with the civil action entitled Los Angeles Clinica Medica General Medical Center Inc. v. Atlantic Management LLC , Case No. 24STCV13007. The moving party has not listed the parties who have appeared in each case in the notice of motion, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(A). Defendant merely recites the abbreviated case names with docket numbers for each of the cases at issue. (See Notice of Motion pp.1-2.) The moving party also has not listed the names of the respective attorneys of record, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(A). The motion does not contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(B), nor has it been filed in any of the other actions as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(C). Further, Defendant has neglected to include a proof of service or provide any evidence that the motion was served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all cases, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(2)(B)-(C). Moreover, the other three actions have not been related into this department, as required by Local Rule 3.3(g). While the parties are identical across the three unlawful detainer actions and have retained the same counsel in all three cases, the civil action (Case No. 24STCV13007) names an additional party, Sergio Gutierrez, as a defendant, who is not accounted for in any of the papers. The Court therefore cannot find that Defendant has complied with the procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate. CONCLUSION : Accordingly, Defendants Motion to Consolidate is DENIED. Moving Party to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 26, 2024 ___________________________________ Theresa M. Traber Judge of the Superior Court Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.