Beverley Walker Vs. Karen Bailey, Et Al

Case Number: 20STCV13012 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 39 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 39 HEARING DATE July 17, 2024 CASE NUMBER 20STCV13012 MOTION Motion to Reopen Discovery MOVING PARTY Plaintiff Guadalupe Encisco OPPOSING PARTY Defendant Avanti Hospitals, LLC MOTION Plaintiff Guadalupe Encisco (Plaintiff) moves to reopen discovery related to Plaintiffs recent surgeries. Defendant Avanti Hospitals, LLC (Defendant) opposes the motion. The court previously considered this matter and, in its order of June 25, 2024, continued it to July 17, 2024 for the parties to submit discovery plans in compliance with this courts March 1, 2024 order. ANALYSIS In determining whether to reopen discovery, the court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the discovery cutoff date, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).) Plaintiff moves to reopen discovery as to surgeries Plaintiff underwent on January 8 and 11, 2024. (See March 17, 2024 Declaration of Raymond Ghermezian (in support of and attached to motion), Exhibit A.) This is a proper basis to reopen discovery. Plaintiff proposes to provide updated medical records to Defendant, to submit to a second session of deposition, and to respond to additional written discovery concerning Plaintiffs surgeries and updated medical issues. (Plaintiffs Proposed Discovery Plan.) Defendant agrees Plaintiffs proposed discovery is necessary but contends Defendant will also need to propound subpoenas for updated medical and pharmacy records, depose Plaintiffs surgeon regarding her surgical care, prognosis, and future care needs, and have Plaintiff sit for an updated orthopedic examination with Defendants expert. (Defendants Proposed Discovery Plan.) The court finds Defendants proposed discovery plan is reasonable and necessary for Defendant to fairly defend this action. However, the court notes Defendant did not include discovery in 2025 in its proposed deadlines, but rather jumped from November 30, 2024 to March 26, 2026. The court assumes this was a clerical error. The court, therefore, grants the motion, subject to Plaintiffs stipulation to submit to Defendants proposed discovery plan, with all proposed deadlines in 2026 corrected to reflect deadlines on the proposed dates in 2025. The court notes, pursuant to the courts order of December 5, 2023, the five-year date for this case is June 26, 2026. The court also conditions its grant of this motion on the parties stipulation to continue the trial date to a date prior to June 26, 2026. Plaintiff is to give notice of this order and file proof of service of same.

Case Number: 24STCV01908 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 71 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 71 TENTATIVE RULING THE PICO PLACE LLC , vs. FREDDIE LEWIS . Case No.: 24STCV01908 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Plaintiff The Pico Place LLCs unopposed motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff The Pico Place LLC (Pico Place) (Plaintiff) moves unopposed for summary judgment against Defendant Freddie Lewis (Lewis) (Defendant). (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§437c, 1107.7.) Plaintiff moves on the grounds there is no material disputed facts rendering summary judgment appropriate regarding possession of the property commonly known as 6565 S Western Ave., #3, Los Angeles, CA 90047. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.) Procedural Background On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff had Defendant served with a Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit for rent owed for the rental period of March 2023 through January 2024 in the amount of $40,100.00. ( Decl. of Saghian ¶ 6, Exhs. 2, 3.) On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint against Defendant for unlawful detainer. On or about February 7, 2024, Defendant filed an Answer. On or about April 3, 2024, Defendant filed for Voluntary Chapter 13 Bankruptcy through the California Central Bankruptcy Court, Case No. 2:24-bk-12573-VZ. The case was automatically dismissed on April 25, 2024, for Defendants failure to file schedules, statements and/or plan. (5/31/24 Notice of Lodging.) On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary judgment. As of the date of this hearing Defendant has not filed an opposition. Summary of Allegations Plaintiff alleges it is the owner of 6565 S Western Ave., #3, Los Angeles, CA 90047, Los Angeles County (Premises). (Complaint ¶¶3-4.) Plaintiff alleges on or about February 1, 2023, Defendant agreed to rent the premises as a month-to-month tenancy and agreed to pay monthly rent of $4,000.00 on the first of the month. (Complaint ¶6a.) Plaintiff alleges this oral agreement was made with Plaintiff, and a copy of the written agreement is not attached to the Complaint because the written agreement is no tin the possession of the landlord or the landlords employees and agents, and because this action is solely for nonpayment of rent. (Complaint ¶¶6b, f.) Plaintiff alleges the tenancy is not subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 because the tenancy is commercial in nature. (Complaint ¶7a.) Plaintiff alleges the tenancy was terminated for at-fault just cause, under §1946.2(b)(1). (Complaint ¶8a.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant and all unknown occupants were served a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit. (Complaint ¶¶9a(1), e, Exh. 2.) Plaintiff alleges the notice was served on Defendant by personally handing a copy to Defendant on January 12, 2024. (Complaint ¶¶10a(1).) Plaintiff alleges on January 18, 2024, the period stated in the notice expired at the end of the day and Defendant failed to comply with the requirements of the notice by that date. (Complaint ¶9b.) Plaintiff requests possession of the premises, costs incurred in this proceeding, including past-due rent of $40,100.00, reasonable attorney fees, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages at the rate of $133.33 per day for fair rental value of the premises from January 19, 2024, for each day Defendants remains in possession through entry of judgment. (Complaint ¶¶13, 19.) Legal Standard A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (C.C.P. §437c(c).) Unlawful Detainer (1st COA) To establish a claim for unlawful detainer, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) plaintiff owns/leases the property; (2) plaintiff rented/subleased the property to defendant; (3) under the lease/rental agreement/sublease, defendant was required to pay rent in a specified amount per period; (4) plaintiff properly gave defendant three days written notice to pay the rent or vacate the property; (5) as of the date of the three-day notice, at least the amount stated in the three-day notice was due; (6) defendant did not pay the amount stated in the notice within three days after service/receipt of the notice; and (7) defendant is still occupying the property. ( See C.C.P. §1161; CACI 4302.) Plaintiff submitted undisputed evidence that it owns the Premises leased to Defendant. ( Decl. of Saghian ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff submitted undisputed evidence that it entered into an oral lease agreement for the Premises with Defendant on February 1, 2023, for the amount of $4,000.00 to be paid on the first day of each calendar month. (Decl. of Saghian ¶5.) Plaintiff submitted undisputed evidence that the three-day notice of pay rent or quit was personally served to Defendant. ( Decl. of Saghian ¶ 6, Exhs. 2, 3.) Plaintiff submitted undisputed evidence that after the three-day notice of pay rent or quit, Defendant failed to pay or quit possession of the Premises, and Plaintiff has not received any rent from Defendant since March 2023 and Defendant is still in possession of the Premises. (Decl. of Saghian ¶8.) Plaintiff met its burden to demonstrate there is no triable issue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ordinarily, Plaintiff would shift the burden to Defendant to raise a triable issue of material fact. However, this motion is unopposed, and no burden-shifting is applicable. Accordingly, Plaintiffs unopposed motion for summary judgement is granted. Conclusion Plaintiffs unopposed motion for summary judgment against Defendant is granted. Moving Party to give notice. Dated: July _____, 2024 Hon. Daniel M. Crowley Judge of the Superior Court

21CV02330 DECKER, MICHAEL P ET AL V. SIERRA PACIFIC LAND & TIMBER COMPANY ET AL EVENT: Motion of Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc. to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One; to Compel Compliance with Plaintiff’s Agreement to Produce Documents; and Request for Monetary Sanctions The Motion is GRANTED in its entirety. The Court finds that although the parties may be in the process of negotiating a settlement agreement in which Plaintiffs would agree to withdraw some or all of their claims in this action, and Plaintiffs intend to narrow their complaint should settlement fail, neither of these events has occurred and thus the requested discovery remains viable and good cause exists to seek the relief requested by this Motion. The Court further finds that the meet and confer efforts in relation to this Motion were sufficient and in good faith. 1 In regard to the substantive objection to Request Nos. 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-17, 19, 22-24, 26, 28-29, the Court finds that the Requests mirror the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint, are not overbroad, and are made with reasonable particularity. The Motion is thus granted, and Plaintiffs shall provide further Code-compliant responses to Request Nos. 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-17, 19, 22-24, 26, 28-29 within 10 days’ notice of this ruling. In regard to Request Nos. 12, 21, 25, 27, 30 and 31, the Court finds that a Separate Statement is not required where a party is seeking to compel the production of promised documents and is not seeking to compel a further response to a discovery request, which is the case here. The Motion is thus granted, and Plaintiffs shall produce the responsive documents to Request Nos. 12, 21, 25, 27, 30 and 31 within 10 days’ notice of this ruling. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff Michael Decker in the amount of $5,000 to be paid within 30 days’ notice of this ruling. The Court will utilize the form of order submitted by counsel with modification to the deadline to provide further responses and the sanctions awarded.

Case Number: 21STCV39199 Hearing Date: July 22, 2024 Dept: 20 Tentative Ruling Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 20 Hearing Date: July 22, 2024 Case Name: Nolasco, et al. v. Farnad, et al. Case No.: 21STCV39199 Matter: Motions to be Relieved as Counsel (2x) Moving Party: Jeffrey A. Asidi, counsel for Plaintiffs Juan Manuel Quiroz Canchola and Marco Solis Responding Party: Unopposed Notice: OK Ruling: The Motions are granted. Moving party to give notice. If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Jeffrey A. Asidi seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Juan Manuel Quiroz Canchola and Marco Solis. The Motions are granted because they meet all requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. Moving party to give notice. Attorney is relieved as counsel of record for client effective upon the filing of the proof of service for the Court order (form MC-053) upon the client. If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

RG17874853: Tinsley VS Glaude 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Deutsche Bank in Department 25 Tentative Ruling - 07/17/2024 Jenna Whitman The hearing on the motion for summary judgment scheduled for 07/18/2024 is continued to 09/05/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

S-CV-0052476 Pierce, Colleen et al vs. Roman, Renee et al No appearance required. CMC is continued to 10/21/24 at 2pm in Dept. 6. Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to Defendant(s): Roman, Renee Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Roman, Renee

Case Number: 24SMCV02485 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 207 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 207 HEARING DATE July 16, 2024 CASE NUMBER 24SMCV02485 MOTION Motion to Quash Service of Summons MOVING PARTIES Defendants Lajos Gerbino and Edith Molnar OPPOSING PARTY none BACKGROUND On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff Silver Block Holding Company, LLC (Plaintiff) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Lajos Gerbino and Edith Molnar (Defendants.) On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff applied for an order to serve the summons by posting, which was granted the same day. The next day, on June 14, 2024, Defendants moved in pro per to quash service of the summons and complaint. The Court has not yet received an opposition, although because this is an unlawful detainer action, Plaintiff may file and serve a written opposition the day before the hearing or may make an opposition orally at the time of the hearing. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1327(b)-(c).) LEGAL STANDARDS A. SERVICE A summons in an action for unlawful detainer of real property may be served by posting if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the court in which the action is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in any manner specified in this article other than publication[.] (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.45, subd. (a).) The court shall order the summons to be posted on the premises in a manner most likely to give actual notice to the party to be served and direct that a copy of the summons and of the complaint be forthwith mailed by certified mail to such party at his last known address. ( Id. at subd. (b).) Service is complete on the 10 th day after posting and mailing. ( Id. at subd. (c).) On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff applied for an order to serve Defendants by posting. That application included a declaration of diligence, outlining several unsuccessful attempts to personally serve Defendants with a copy of the summons and complaint. Plaintiffs application to post was granted the same day. The following day, June 14, Defendants filed the instant motion to quash, arguing that Plaintiff only left a copy of the first page of the Complaint with one person, and without completing substitute service. (Motion at p. 3; Gerbino Decl. at lines 16-18.) As a threshold matter, the Court finds Defendants proof of service for the motion faulty. It indicates the declarant, Chelsea Cooper served a copy of the notice of motion and motion to Plaintiffs counsel AS FOLLOWS. I am readily familiar with the firms practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited within U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Diego, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date of postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. This does not indicate that the declarant actually left the notice of motion and motion anywhere for mailing, or otherwise deposited it in the mail. Further, declarant does not specify which firm or firms practice the declarant refers to. Further, to the extent that, at the time Defendants filed the instant motion, Defendants had only received the copy of the summons that had been posted, such conduct would be consistent with service by posting, but such service would not yet have been complete, as service by posting is not complete until 10 days after posting and mailing a copy of the summons and complaint. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on the motion to September 23, 2024 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207. Defendants shall provide notice of the motion and continued hearing by either personal service or by mail (regular or overnight) on or before July 26, 2024. Thereafter, Defendants shall file the notice with the Court with a proof of service on or before August 9, 2024. DATED: July 16, 2024 ___________________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court

GLADSTONE, ET AL. VS. MEISSNER, ET AL. Case Number: CVCV21-0197823 This matter is on calendar for review regarding trial setting. The previous trial date was vacated by the Court’s order dated April 18, 2024. The Court previously designated this matter exempt from case disposition time standards. It appears that neither side has posted jury fees, which as previously noted in the Court’s October 23, 2023 Order, is deemed a waiver of the right to a jury. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with available trial dates. J.D. VS. THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF