Equable Ascent Financial Llc Vs Douglas Janette E

MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF ONE ENERGY ASSIGNMENT OF FUNDS AGAINST CVRI2306578 CONSULTING GROUP VS NEW PARADISE CONSTRUCTION, SALMERON INC. AND ALBERTO SALMERON Tentative Ruling: Grant motion for assignment order and motion for restraining order.

MEMBERS 1ST VS. ESTATE OF SMITH, ET AL. Case Number: CVG21-0000494 This matter is on calendar for review of the case. The Court notes that the matter is on calendar on Monday, July 22, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 23 for hearing on a Motion to Approve Stipulation for Judgment Entered in Civil Case and Approval of Motion to Affix Attorney’s Fees as an Element of Costs in Civil Judgment. The July 22, 2024 hearing is confirmed. A future review hearing will be calendared on July 22, 2024. Today’s review hearing is dropped from calendar. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

23CV030139: KANANI, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/15/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Dipti Kanani (Plaintiff) + in Department 19 Tentative Ruling - 07/12/2024 Joscelyn Jones On Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production Set One and Requests for Sanctions, COUNSEL ARE TO APPEAR in Department 19, IN PERSON (i.e., not by Zoom), to address the status of this dispute. Plaintiffs sue for violation of the Song Beverly Warranty Act (“the SBW Act”) in connection with their purchase of a 2019 Cadillac Escalade ESV. The Court offers its current tentative opinions about the discovery requests at issue in this motion. Requests Nos. 10 and 31 are directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, and Defendant should serve a further verified response, without objections, and verify that it has produced all responsive documents. Some portion of the documents sought in Requests Nos. 21-28 may potentially be relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant willfully violated the SBW Act. (See, e.g., Jensen v. BMW of North America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 136.) However, these Requests, as drafted, appear to be significantly overbroad. Plaintiffs’ claims involve the purchase of a new 2019 Cadillac Escalade ESV. Some of these Requests have no time limitation, and some seek all documents since 2015, predating Plaintiffs’ purchase of their vehicle by four years. Prior to the hearing, counsel should meet and confer to discuss whether they can agree on some type of reasonable limitations on these Requests. According to Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement (which is the document the Court typically reviews in ruling on motions to compel further responses), Requests Nos. 34-35 and 37 seek documents pertaining to a 2022 Chevrolet Silverado. The Court does not understand the relevance of those documents, because Plaintiffs’ claims involve a different model and year number. If Requests Nos. 34-35 and 37 sought documents pertaining to a 2019 Cadillac Escalade ESV, Requests Nos. 34-35 would appear to be relevant, but Request No. 37 appears to be overbroad because it is not limited to repairs of the type sought by Plaintiffs.

Matter on the Law and Motion Calendar for Friday, July 19, 2024, Line 15. PLAINTIFF SECFI, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION's Notice Of Application For Writ Of Possession And Hearing. Plaintiff SECFI's unopposed Application for Writ of Possession and Turnover Order is granted. Friday's Law & Motion Calendar will be called out of Dept. 301. Anyone intending to appear in person should report to Dept. 301. However, anyone intending to appear remotely should use the regular Zoom information for Dept. 302's Law & Motion Calendar for 9:30 a.m. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the defendant is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RCE)

23CV-04692 ODK Capital LLC v. Daniel Lowe, et al. Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions Appearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance. Appear to address Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the June 10, 2024 Case Management Conference and whether Plaintiff should be ordered to pay monetary sanctions of $100. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Ex Parte Matters Judge Pro Tem Monika Saini Donabed Courtroom 8 627 W. 21st Street, Merced Friday, July 19, 2024 1:15 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements. Case No. Title / Description There are no Ex Parte matters scheduled. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Ex Parte Matters Hon. Mason Brawley Courtroom 9 627 W. 21st Street, Merced Friday, July 19, 2024 1:15 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements. Case No. Title / Description There are no Ex Parte matters scheduled. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Ex Parte Matters Hon. Jennifer O. Trimble Courtroom 12 1159 G Street, Los Banos Friday, July 19, 2024 1:15 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements. Case No. Title / Description There are no Ex Parte matters scheduled. ____________________________________________________________________________

Motion to Compel Further Responses to WHITTED vs GENERAL Plaintiff's Requests for Production of CVRI2305542 MOTORS, LLC Documents Set One by MARIANA JESUS WHITTED Tentative Ruling: Factual / Procedural Context: This is a lemon law case. Plaintiff Mariana Jesus Whitted alleges that on March 19, 2021, she purchased a 2021 GMC Arcadia, manufactured and/or distributed by defendant General Motors, LLC. Plaintiff alleges that serious defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested within the applicable warranty period, which Defendant’s authorized facility was unable to repair. The alleged defects relate to the engine, transmission, electrical system, and infotainment system. On October 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the complaint, alleging various claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: (1) violation of Civ. Code § 1793.2(d); (2) violation of Civ. Code § 1793.2(b); (3) violation of Civ. Code § 1793.2(a)(3); and (4) breach of implied warranty (Civ. Code § 1791.1). On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff served the first set of requests for production of documents (“RFPs”) to which Defendant provided verified responses. Plaintiff contends the responses remain deficient despite meet and confer efforts, and now moves to compel further responses to RFP nos. 1-3, 7, 8, 15-20, 27, 28, 37, 38, 49, 50, 67-70, 78-79, 84, 86, 88, 97, 111-116, arguing the documents sought are highly relevant and Defendant’s objections meritless. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the amount of $3,000. Defendant opposes, arguing that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently meet and confer, Defendant produced further documents and/or agreed to produce further documents, and Defendant’s objections have merit. In the Replies, Plaintiff reiterates her moving arguments. Analysis: Where responses to document requests have been timely served but are deemed deficient by the requesting party (e.g., the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general), that party may file a motion compelling further responses. (CCP § 2031.310.) The motion must be served within 45 days after service of a verified response (CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)) and must be accompanied by a declaration showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues informally outside of court. (CCP § 2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).) The motion to compel further responses “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (Guess? Inc.) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Penn.) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established, the responding party has the burden to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98.) Here, Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer prior to filing the motion. Whether a “reasonable and good faith attempt” was made requires an “evaluation of whether, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the discovering party, additional effort appears likely to bear fruit.” (Clement v. Alegra (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) Although some effort is required in all instances, the level of effort that is reasonable is different in different circumstances, and may vary with the prospects for success. (Id.) In this case, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter on January 8, 2024 simultaneously with the document requests, before Defendant even had a chance to review much less respond to the requests. (Declaration of Nino Sanaia, Exs. 8, 10.) Defendant responded by letter on January 16, 2024, rightfully stating the meet and confer letter was premature but agreeing to have discussions regarding ESI discovery after responses have been provided. (Id., Ex. 11.) Defendant provided responses on February 6, 2024 with verifications on March 5, 2024. (Id., Ex. 9.) In response, on March 20, 2024, Plaintiff sent a boilerplate 29-page meet and confer form letter - not tailored to Defendant’s actual responses - explaining the relevance of all 131 document requests, demanding Defendant withdraw all of its objections and supplement its previous production. (Id., Ex. 12.) There is some evidence that the letter is merely a cut-and-paste job. Specifically, Plaintiff’s extensive discussion on the relevance of the documents to her fraud claim appears misplaced as, Plaintiff did not allege fraud in this case. (Id., at pp. 15-17.) Moreover, Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant supplemented its document production on April 16, 2024. (Declaration of Ryan Kay, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff did not attempt to further meet and confer after this production. The 2- sentence email sent by Plaintiff on April 23, 2024, simultaneously with the filing of this motion, does not address Defendant’s supplemental production and does not support a finding of a good faith effort to meet and confer. Primarily at issue is whether Plaintiff is entitled to documents and information evidencing i) Defendant’s internal knowledge and investigation regarding “Engine Defects” and “MyLink Defects” in GMC Acadia vehicles; ii) policies and procedures for handling customer complaints and repurchase requests under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”); and iii) documents concerning communications with governmental agencies (e.g., the NHTSA and EPA) and suppliers regarding the “Engine Defects” and “MyLink Defects” in GMC Acadia vehicles. These are similar to the discovery issues at issue in most lemon law cases. Plaintiff also complains that responses related to Plaintiff’s vehicle are not code-compliant. The matter is continued, the parties are ordered to meet and confer. Additionally, the court offers these further suggestion as to the meet and confer process: To help the parties in their meet and confer efforts, the Court notes that the following documents are generally discoverable by an SBA plaintiff: • Defendant’s communications with dealer, factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle. • Warranty policies and claim-handling procedures published by Defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the period of the date of purchase to the date the lawsuit was filed. • Defendant’s internal analysis or investigation regarding defects alleged in plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle, including recall notices and technical service bulletins. The Court preliminarily notes that Plaintiff’s definition of “Engine Defects” and “MyLink Defects” in the RFPs do not appear to match the defects allegedly experienced by Plaintiff in the subject vehicle (Sanaia Dec., ¶¶ 6-12), and the requests are not limited to vehicles of the same year as Plaintiff’s vehicle. • Documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the SBA for the period of the date of purchase to the date the lawsuit was filed. Furthermore, considering the nature of this dispute, the Court is inclined to limit ESI discovery by balancing Plaintiff’s showing of good cause and Defendant’s showing of undue burden. (See CCP § 2031.310(g)(4); Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Thiem Indus., Inc.)(1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223.) The parties shall meet and confer regarding appropriate search terms. The parties are to meet and confer meaningfully in person, by telephone or by videoconference within 10 days of this order. At least 7 days prior to the next hearing date, the moving party is to file a declaration describing the meet and confer process and identifying any remaining issues. The motion to compel is rescheduled to September 16, 2024 in D5 at 8:30 AM. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

S-CV-0051850 Georgiou, Christos vs. FCA US LLC ** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouraged NOTE: No party has paid advance jury fees pursuant to CCP § 631. Trial Date & Length: 12/29/25 5 day Jury Trial (Please contact Master Calendar (916) 408-6061 on the business day prior to the scheduled trial date to find courtroom availability.) Civil Trial Conference: 12/12/25 (heard at 8:30 am in Dept. 3) Mandatory Settlement Conference: 12/05/25 (heard at 8:30am; report to Jury Services) NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED UNLESS REQUESTED BY PARTY BY 3PM ON THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO HEARING DATE. REQUESTS FOR APPEARANCE MUST BE FAXED TO THE CIVIL DEPARTMENT, ATTN: CMC CLERK AT (916) 408-6275, AND TO ALL OPPOSING ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES WITHOUT ATTORNEYS BY 3:00 PM THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO THE CASE MANAGEMENT DATE. SEE LOCAL RULE 20.1.7.

Case Number: 20STCV30039 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 54 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Ariana Builders, Plaintiffs, Case No.: 20STCV30039 vs. Ruling 1999 Sycamore LLC., et al., Defendants. Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel Moving Party : Randy S. Snyder, counsel of record for Defendants Robert Haro; R. Douglas Spiro, Jr.; Cole Harris; CSM Sycamore, LLC; and Capital Stone Management, Inc. Responding Party : None T/R : THE MOTIONS ARE GRANTED. COUNSEL IS TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OF ORDER ON THE PARTIES WITHIN 5 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. COUNSEL WILL BE RELIEVED UPON FILING OF PROOF OF SERVICE OF ORDER. COUNSEL TO GIVE NOTICE. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received. The Court may issue an order allowing an attorney to withdraw from representation, after notice to the client. (CCP § 284.) The attorney may withdraw from representation as long as the withdrawal would not result in undue prejudice to the clients interesti.e., counsel cannot withdraw at a critical point in the litigation. ( Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915; see California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700.) Attorney Randy S. Snyder, counsel of record for Defendants Robert Haro; R. Douglas Spiro, Jr.; Cole Harris; CSM Sycamore, LLC; and Capital Stone Management, Inc, seeks to withdraw from representation of each Defendant. Counsel states that, due to a change in the management of 1999 Sycamore, LLC, conflicts have arisen among counsels clients in this action. Trial has not been set in this matter, and no prejudice will result from Counsels withdrawal. Counsel has complied with CRC 3.1362. There is good cause for Counsels withdrawal. The motions are GRANTED. As this will result in corporate defendants without counsel, the Court will set an OSC re representation of the corporate entities.