Abbitt Management Inc. Dba Presidential Plaza Vs Renee Golson

Case Number: 21STCV17195 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 50 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 50 NIVO 1, LLC , et al ., Plaintiffs, vs. LIN DEE LU SERVICES , et al ., Defendants. Case No.: 21STCV17195 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Steven J. Barkin of the Law Offices of Steven J. Barkin (Counsel) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiffs Nivo 1, LLC, D.A. Beec-007, LLC, and Anne Kihagi. The Court finds that Counsel has provided sufficient reason for withdrawal. However, the Court notes that after the instant motion was filed, a Trial Setting Conference was held in which a Final Status Conference (FSC) was scheduled for August 9, 2024, and a Non-Jury Trial was scheduled for August 28, 2024. ( See July 9, 2024 Minute Order.) Thus, the proposed order (Form MC-053) do not list the August 9, 2024 FSC or the August 28, 2024 trial date. In addition, Item 6 of the proposed order does not list Counsels clients telephone number(s). If Counsel provides the Court with a revised order correcting the foregoing defects prior to the hearing, the Court will grant the motion.¿ Counsel is ordered to give notice of this order. DATED: July 16, 2024 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Motion for Interlocutory Judgment for CVPS2304994 BODINE vs LIEM Partition and Appointment of Referee by WILLIAM P. BODINE Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling. Hearing will be conducted on Monday July 15, 2024 8:30 a.m. Department PS2.

Case Number: 21STCV43201 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 61 JILL GREENBERG 2019 TRUST vs ERNEST FINANCIAL, LLC, et al. (Commercial) TENTATIVE Plaintiff Jill Greenberg as Trustee of Jill Greenberg 2019 Trusts Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant David Bogner is GRANTED. Sanctions are awarded against Bogner in the amount of $2,660.00, payable to Plaintiff within 30 days. DISCUSSION I. MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION A party may make a motion compelling a witnesss deposition after service of a deposition notice if that witness fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must include a meet-and-confer declaration and show good cause for the discovery sought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1), (2).) Plaintiff Jill Greenberg as Trustee of the 2019 Jill Greenberg Trust (Plaintiff) moves to compel the deposition of Defendant David Bogner (Bogner). Plaintiff presents evidence that Bogner was served with a deposition notice on April 4, 2024, noticing his deposition to take place on May 10, 2024. (Paya Decl. ¶ 3.) Bogner served objections on May 1, 2024, and did not appear. (Paya Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. 2.) Bogner in opposition argues that Plaintiff did not attempt to meet and confer before filing this motion, as required under Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).) (Opposition at pp. 23.) However, Plaintiff presents email correspondence in which Plaintiff sought to confirm Bogners appearance for deposition, and addressed the objections thereto served by Bogner. (Paya Decl. Exh. 2.) This was sufficient prelude to the present motion. Bogner argues that there is no showing that the notice of deposition was served on him, based on the unsigned proof of service attached to the notice of deposition.(Opposition at p. 3; Paya Decl. Exh. 2.) But Plaintiffs counsel attests that it was served (Paya Decl. ¶ 3), and Bogner presents no evidence to the contrary. Indeed, Bogner served objections to the notice, indicating that it was indeed served upon him. (Paya Decl. Exh. 2.) Bogner argues that the motion has made no showing to rebut his objections to the notice. (Opposition at p. 3.) But it is not Plaintiffs burden to rebut Bogners objections; it is Bogners burden to support the objections he offers. (See Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220 [[H]e who asserts the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proving it.].) Bogner argues that the motion includes no separate statement related to the document requests to which he offered objections, as required by California Rules of Court (CRC) Rule 3.1345, subd. (a). (Opposition at p. 4.) However, such a document would serve little purpose here, as Bogner presented the same boilerplate objection to each request for production. (Paya Decl. Exh. 2.) These 18 requests relate to the subject property and Bogners income therefrom, and relate to the subject matter of this action, which includes Bogners failure to pay rent on the property and alleged damages resulting from its re-rental to another party. (Paya Decl. Exh. 1.) Bogner has made no effort to support the objections here. The motion is therefore GRANTED. I. SANCTIONS If a motion to compel deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Bogner and his counsel in the amount of $3,960.00, representing six hours of attorney work at $650 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (Paya Decl. ¶ 9.) Sanctions in this amount are warranted against Bogner. However, Bogners counsel has been attempting to secure leave from this court to be relieved as counsel for Bogner, based on his clients non-responsiveness. Such was made clear to Plaintiff in the parties meet-and-confer correspondence. (Paya Decl. Exhs. 1, 2.) It therefore appears that Bogner alone, rather than his counsel, is responsible for his failure to appear. Accordingly, sanctions are awarded against Bogner, and not his counsel. However, the Court finds that four hours of attorney time is reasonable and reduces the sanctions accordingly to $2660.00.

WILKINSON VS. WILKINSON, ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0202523 This matter is on calendar for trial setting. The matter is at issue. The Court designates this matter as a Plan II case and intends to set the matter for trial no later than December 16, 2024. The parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to the hearing regarding proposed dates for a court trial. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 17, 2024 line 10. PLAINTIFF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BY AND THROUGH THE SAN FRANCISCO PORT COMMISSION Notice Of Motion To Have Requests For Admission Deemed Admitted And To Compel Responses To Discovery And Request For Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED, subject to opposition. Admissions are deemed admitted. Defendants to provide complete verified responses without objections to First Set of Form Interrogatories, First Set of Requests for Production, First Set of Special Interrogatories within 5 days of notice of entry of order. Sanctions granted in the amount of $900. =(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.

Case Number: 22AHCV00548 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: X Tentative Ruling Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X HEARING DATE: July 18, 2024 TRIAL DATE: No date set. CASE: PREF PASADENA COLLECTION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, v. PASADENA COLLECTION WEST PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California mutual benefit corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive. CASE NO.: 22AHCV00548 MOTIONS TO QUASH BUSINESS RECORD SUBPOENA MOVING PARTY: Defendant Pasadena Collection West Property Owners Association RESPONDING PARTY : Plaintiff Pref Pasadena Collection, LLC SERVICE: Filed May 10, 2024 and May 21, 2024 OPPOSITION: Filed July 1, 2024 REPLY: Filed May 23, 2024 RELIEF REQUESTED Defendant moves to quash Plaintiffs deposition subpoena for production of business records to: (1) non-party Darryl Young; (2) non-party Jerry Acker, Jerry Acker Construction Consulting; (3) non-party All Pro Copper Repipes, Inc.; and (4) non-party James E. Vitale. BACKGROUND This case arises out of Plaintiff Pref Pasadena Collection, LLCs (Plaintiff) claim that Defendant Pasadena Collection West Property Owners Association (Defendant) failed to abide by the Declaration of Establishment of Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R) for the Pasadena Collection West. Plaintiff filed this complaint on August 5, 2022, alleging three causes of action for (1) declaratory relief, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealings. TENTATIVE RULING Defendants motions to quash business record subpoenas are DENIED. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 authorizes courts to quash a subpoena entirely, modify it, or direct compliance with it upon the courts own terms and conditions, including protective orders. In addition, the court may take other appropriate means to protect parties or nonparties from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) Discovery devices are meant to facilitate litigation, not wage it. ( Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 221.) Where privacy rights are at stake, [t]he party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations. . . . Courts must instead place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies. . . . What suffices to justify an invasion will . . . vary according to the context. Only obvious invasions of interests fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest. ( Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 552-557 (internal citations omitted).) In instances in which the interests at stake are fundamental to personal autonomy, the party seeking discovery must demonstrate that the information is directly relevant to the issues in the action, and that there is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the information that outweighs the right to privacy. ( Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525.) DISCUSSION Darryl Young On or about April 18, 2024, Plaintiff served a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Non-Party Darryl Yong. Defendant served objections to Plaintiffs subpoena on May 1, 2024. Defendant argues that the subpoena seeks records that are not relevant to the current case, are outside the statute of limitations from claims in a prior lawsuit, and impose an undue burden and expense on Yong. Defendant requests that the Court quash the subpoena because it is unreasonable and oppressive, including violations of the right to privacy, as protected under Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1. The subpoena seeks documents relating to the property, correspondence between the requester and the Board of the Pasadena Collection West Mixed-Use Condominium Project, and documents from 2004 to the present, including communications with HOA management companies, Board documents, and architectural review committee meeting minutes. Additionally, documents related to both the City of Pasadena, the Pasadena Planning Department, the Pasadena Building Department, and the Pasadena Business Licensing Department are requested. Further, documents concerning Association Board meetings, any Association Board member, Association Property Management companies and their employees, Association advisors, and Association attorneys are sought. Specific attention is given to the commercial condominium unit at 825 Cordova, Pasadena, California, and any construction activities on the Association Property. This includes documents concerning any construction that occurred or was planned, repairs of faulty water supply lines and valves, fire sprinkler lines, and any portion of the fire sprinkler system. The requests also extend to backup documents for payment requests related to these repairs, including receipts, daily logs, invoices, and material orders. Lastly, documents concerning the repair and construction activities in the Common Area of the Association Property are included. Plaintiff describes Yong as follows: Daryll Yong is a former Board Member of the Defendant Association, in the early years of the Boards existence. Interestingly, when Defendant produced records, some of their records were Bates stamped, with the name Yong in the production. Mr. Yongs records would tend to show if the Association treated the commercial unit unequally with respect to the one and only tenant that ever occupied the commercial unit, a Kut-n-Beauty hair salon that was in existence from about the time the mixed-use project was first occupied. (Nevin Decl., ¶ 24.) Of course, all of Mr. Yongs documents are discoverable because they could show the Board treated the commercial unit differently by prioritizing residential quiet over commercial needs, or any other type of unequal treatment. Plaintiff argues that Defendants Motions to Quash assert incorrect and irrelevant authority. Plaintiff highlights that discovery cannot be denied simply because the evidence might not be admissible at trial, as established in Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1481. The Court agrees that the cases relied upon by Defendant, such as Terry v. SLICO (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 352, Fuentes v. Tucker (1941) 31 Cal.2d 1, and Dept. of Health Servs. v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 80, discuss trial procedures and the admissibility of evidence, not the discovery process. Thus, the cited cases do not support the Defendants arguments for quashing the subpoenas. The Court also finds that the subpoenas are relevant as they seek records to prove unequal treatment by the Association, which is central to the case. Plaintiff explains that the documents requested are likely to show how the commercial unit was treated differently compared to residential units, both in terms of construction defects and subsequent repairs. Thus, the Court denies the motion to quash subpoena as to Yong. Jerry Acker, Jerry Acker Construction Consulting On or about April 18, 2024, Plaintiff served a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Non-Party Jerry Acker, Jerry Acker Construction Consulting. Defendant served objections to Plaintiffs subpoena on May 1, 2024. Defendant makes the same arguments as above. The subpoena seeks similar documents as above. Plaintiff describes Acker as follows: Jerry Acker was a construction consultant, who as the Associations agent was integrally involved in the construction defect litigation; his involvement included advising on the litigation and a post-defect litigation survey and questionnaire of unit owners related to construction defects throughout the mixed-use project. (Nevin Decl., ¶ 20.) His records would show if the Association treated the commercial unit unequally with respect to the defect, the lawsuit, the repairs, and the post-repair continuing problems. More importantly, Mr. Acker was also the Associations consultant and agent during the time Plaintiff was attempting to obtain the Associations approval for Magnailificent, a nail salon that signed a lease and then spent over three years trying to obtain Defendants approval, after which it gave up and cancelled its lease with Plaintiff. (Nevin Decl., ¶ 22.) For the reasons discussed above, the Court denies the motion to quash subpoena as to Acker. All Pro Copper Repipes, Inc. On or about April 18, 2024, Plaintiff served a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Non-Party All Prop Copper Repipes. Defendant served objections to Plaintiffs subpoena on May 1, 2024. Defendant makes the same arguments as above. The subpoena seeks similar documents as above. Plaintiff describes All Pro Copper Repipes as follows: All Pro Copper Repipes is a Corona, California company that appears to have completely re-piped the project. Their records would tend to show if the Association treated the commercial unit unequally with respect to the defect, the lawsuit, and the repairs. Equally importantly, the records produced thus far by Defendant show that the project suffered from further plumbing, water, and leak problems, both before and also after the construction defect repairs were performed. (Nevin Decl., ¶ 25.) The unequal treatment would potentially be shown not only by whether or not the commercial unit was repaired: all other communications between the Association and All Pro would be discoverable because it could show the Board treated the commercial unit differently. Moreover, the documents obtained thus far confirm that the project has experienced water, plumbing, and leak issues both before and after the construction defect was repaired. (Nevin Decl., ¶ 19.) For the reasons discussed above, the Court denies the motion to quash subpoena as to All Pro Copper Repipes. James E. Vitale On or about April 18, 2024, Plaintiff served a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Non-Party James E. Vitale. Defendant served objections to Plaintiffs subpoena on May 1, 2024. Defendant makes the same arguments as above. The subpoena seeks similar documents as above. Plaintiff describes James E. Vitale as follows: Jim Vitale was a construction consultant, who as the Plaintiffs consultant and agent was integrally involved during the time Plaintiff was attempting to obtain the Associations approval for Magnailificent, a nail salon that signed a lease and then spent over three years trying to obtain Defendants approval, after which it gave up and cancelled its lease with Plaintiff. (Nevin Decl., ¶ 23.) As he was Plaintiffs consultant, the Defendants Motion to Quash the subpoena directed to him is particularly meritless. His records will directly show the type of scrutiny the Defendant exhibited, the unreasonable delays caused by the Defendant that caused the nail salon approval process to be unresolved for over 3 years, and the unequal treatment the Defendant exhibited compared to residential tenants requests for approval of modifications and construction. For the reasons discussed above, the Court denies the motion to quash subpoena as to James E. Vitale. CONCLUSION Defendants motions to quash business record subpoenas are DENIED. Moving Party to give notice. Dated: July 18, 2024 ___________________________________ Joel L. Lofton Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 23STCV23617 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 71 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 71 TENTATIVE RULING ANGELENO HOMES, LLC, vs. GERALD G. HILL, et al. Case No.: 23STCV23617 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 The Court denies Plaintiffs default judgment packet. The Court sets a hearing on an order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed and/or Plaintiffs counsel sanctioned $250 for failing to enter default judgment (California Rule of Court, rule 3.110(h)) on September 18, 2024, at 8:30 AM in Department 71 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse for the following reasons: 1. The address for service currently does not reflect the apartment unit number that appears on a public records search for the defaulted defendant. The address should be for 800 W 110th Street Apt. 108, Los Angeles, CA 90044. 2. Complaint seeks punitive damages, but no statement of damages was served by personal service on Defendant. 3. No signed cost memorandum on the back of the CIV-100 form for Court Judgment. 4. No JUD-100 submitted to the Court. 5. No foundation for the documents submitted to the Court, only a request to take judicial notice. 6. No interest calculation provided to the Court, nor is there an indication on the CIV-100 request for Court judgment that interest is sought. However, the proposed judgment indicates that interest is sought. 7. The Complaint does not specify the damages claimed? Punitive damages are sought, did the plaintiff personally serve the requisite statement of damages or notice of punitive damages (C.C.P. §425.11(c) and 425.115)? If Plaintiff seeks punitive damages, is there evidence of the defendants wealth? An award of punitive damages requires evidence as to the defendants wealth. ( Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 390; Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 118.) 8. The request for court judgment does not properly seek an amount that is equal to or less than the amount sought in the prayer of the complaint or C.C.P. §425.11 statement of damages. ( See, e.g. , Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 830-831 [stating court acts in excess of its jurisdiction and the resulting default judgment is void if the court awards default judgment in an amount greater than that demanded in the complaint, including if the complaint does not specify the amount demanded]). 9. No declaration submitted by witness with percipient knowledge and with sufficient foundation to support the damages sought.

Case Number: 22STCV10115 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 50 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 50 TOMAS LLAMAS , Plaintiff, vs. MARTIN ROBLES LOPEZ , et al ., Defendants. Case No.: 22STCV10115 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Plaintiff Tomas Llamas (Plaintiff) seeks entry of default judgment against Defendants Martin Robles Lopez and Francisca Montes De Oca aka Francisca Montesdeoca. Plaintiff seeks $1,961.73 in costs and judgment that the Covenant and Agreement Regarding Maintenance of Off-Street Parking Space recorded on August 7, 1959 authorizing three (3) parking spaces on the servient tenement for use by dominant tenement is extinguished. ( See Proposed Judgment, Item 8.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently supported his request with the submitted declarations and evidence. Therefore, Plaintiffs request is granted, and the Court will sign the judgment. No appearance at the hearing is necessary.¿¿ DATED: July 18, 2024 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court