In The Matter Of: Caroline Masunah Reed

FLORES VS. LANDRAU Case Number: 24CV-0204650 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued on June 13, 2024, to Plaintiff Eladio Flores, in pro per, for failure to timely serve pleadings on Defendant Bianca Landrau pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b). “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” CRC 3.110(b). The Complaint in this matter was filed on March 29, 2024, and no proof of service has been filed. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the Order to Show Cause. With no sufficient excuse for the delay, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order of Sanctions. The Court will issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal pursuant to Gov’t Code Section 68608(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the complaint. The hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is set for Monday, September 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. This matter is also calendared on Monday, September 9, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64 for review regarding status of service.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2024CUPT025038: IN THE MATTER OF EZRA MATTHEW FEINBERG 07/11/2024 in Department 21 OSC - Name Change The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at 805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Tentative Ruling GRANT the Petition for name change from Samuel Thomas Feinberg to Samuel Feinberg Ryan And from Ezra Matthew Feinberg to Ezra Matthew Ryan.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 202100556158CUBT: GI Industries vs. Arakelian Enterprises 07/25/2024 in Department 20 Motion to Stay the Taking of Depositions and Quash The Deposition Notices of Michael Arakelian and Ron Arakelian Jr and for a Protective Order Notice Regarding Courtroom 20 Law & Motion Procedures: The law and motion calendar in Courtroom 20 before Judge Matthew P. Guasco starts between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Ex parte applications will be heard at the same time as matters on the law and motion calendar. Parties appearing by Court Call must check in with the Judicial Assistant by 8:10 a.m. No notice of intent to appear is required. Parties wishing to submit on the tentative decision must so notify the Court by e-mail at Courtroom20@ventura.courts.ca.gov. Do not call in lieu of sending an e-mail. If a party submits on the tentative decision without appearing, but another party appears, the hearing will be conducted in the absence of the non-appearing party. Effective February 13, 2018, all cases assigned to Courtroom 20 are assigned for all purposes (including trial) to Judge Guasco. REMOTE APPEARANCES: Judge Guasco invites attorneys, self-represented parties, and parties to appear remotely via Court Call or Zoom for all law and motion, case management conference, trial setting conferences, and status hearings. You may contact Court Call as follows: www.courtcall.com or call 888-882-6878. It is the Court’s understanding that Court Call will waive its fee as to parties who have obtained a fee waiver from the Court. The Court will not accept any Court Call reservations submitted later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the scheduled hearing. Court Call reservations are not accepted on Court Furlough Days or Court Holidays. Judge Guasco’s instructions and rules, as well as the link, for Zoom appearances are located at http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/covid19/Courtroom20_Zoom-Appearance_Flyer_2022.pdf. PLEASE NOTE: All those appearing by Zoom must follow Judge Guasco’s conduct orders which can be found at http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/Courtroom/C20. The following is the Court’s tentative decision concerning the motion of defendant, Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Athens Enterprises (“Athens”), to stay the taking of depositions an quash the deposition notices of Michael Arakelian and Ron Arakelian, Jr., and for a protective order, in this action by plaintiff, G.I. Industries d/b/a Waste Management (“WM”): For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Athens’s motion: (1) “California law provides parties with expansive discovery rights.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 590.) “Unless otherwise limited” by a court order, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... , if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010.) 202100556158CUBT: GI Industries vs. Arakelian Enterprises (2) Athens brings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410, which provides in pertinent part as follows: “(a) Any party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210) waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the deposition notice was served. “(b) If an objection is made three calendar days before the deposition date, the objecting party shall make personal service of that objection pursuant to Section 1011 on the party who gave notice of the deposition. Any deposition taken after the service of a written objection shall not be used against the objecting party under Section 2025.620 if the party did not attend the deposition and if the court determines that the objection was a valid one. “(c) In addition to serving this written objection, a party may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. The taking of the deposition is stayed pending the determination of this motion.” (3) Athens also moves for a protective order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, which provides in pertinent part as follows: “(a) Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. “(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: (1) That the deposition not be taken at all. ... (5) That the deposition be taken only on certain specified terms and conditions. ... (9) That certain matters not be inquired into. (10) That the scope of the examination be limited to certain matters. ... 202100556158CUBT: GI Industries vs. Arakelian Enterprises (g) If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that the deponent provide or permit the discovery against which protection was sought on those terms and conditions that are just.” (4) Here, Athens objected and has moved for an order staying the taking of the depositions and quashing the deposition notices directed to Micheal Arakelian and Ron Arakelian, Jr., as well as for a protective order. The parties fulfilled their duties to meet and confer in good faith to avoid this motion. The Court finds the parties have a legitimate disagreement about whether the depositions of these two board members and officers of Athens should be deposed. (5) The depositions at issue here clearly involve “apex” corporate officers: Michael Arakelian and Ron Arakelian, Jr. As such, the following sets forth the law governing resolution of the instant motion: “Consistent with these federal decisions, we hold that when a plaintiff seeks to depose a corporate president or other official at the highest level of corporate management, and that official moves for a protective order to prohibit the deposition, the trial court should first determine whether the plaintiff has shown good cause that the official has unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information. If not, as will presumably often be the case in the instance of a large national or international corporation, the trial court should issue the protective order and first require the plaintiff to obtain the necessary discovery through less intrusive methods. These would include interrogatories directed to the high-level official to explore the state of his or her knowledge or involvement in plaintiff's case; the deposition of lower level employees with appropriate knowledge and involvement in the subject matter of the litigation; and the organizational deposition of the corporation itself, which will require the corporation to produce for deposition the most qualified officer or employee to testify on its behalf as to the specified matters to be raised at the deposition. (§ 2025, subd. (d)(6).) Should these avenues be exhausted, and the plaintiff make a colorable showing of good cause that the high-level official possesses necessary information to the case, the trial court may then lift the protective order and allow the deposition to proceed.” (Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1289.) (6) “A protective order prohibiting the deposition of a corporate president may be granted where it is shown the corporate president lacks knowledge or involvement in the litigation, and such deposition is being sought prior to plaintiff's exhaustion of less intrusive means of discovery. Such “high level” (or “apex”) depositions “raise a tremendous potential for discovery abuse and harassment.” (Id., 10 Cal. App.4th at pp. 1287-1288.) Thus, in order to show good cause for the deposition of an apex officer, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the officer has unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information; and (2) that plaintiff has exhausted all less-intrusive avenues of discovery. (7) The Court finds that WM has provided a reasonable factual basis to conclude that board members and officers Micheal Arakelian and Ron Arakelian, Jr. have the requisite personal 202100556158CUBT: GI Industries vs. Arakelian Enterprises knowledge of relevant discoverable information and that WM exhausted less intrusive discovery methods. The depositions appear warranted based upon the direct personal factual information these two board members/officers likely possess concerning the primary material issue in this action: the alleged improper purpose of Athens in approving the below-cost bid which secured the Franchise Agreement for waste disposal services in the City of Thousand Oaks. (8) Athens is not a large national or multi-national corporation. It is a closely-held corporation with only four board members and officers, all of whom are members of the Arakelian family. It is true, as Athens points out, that it has responded to an enormous volume of discovery propounded by WM thus far in this litigation initiated by WM. The Court finds, however, that given the small size of Athens and the concentration of decision making authority in four individuals, two of whom are the deponents, there is more than sufficient good cause for the depositions to get at the root of the bidding decisions and motives at issue in this case. As acknowledged by Athens, the case boils down to whether Athens’s successful bid to the City of Thousand Oaks was (1) below-cost, and (2) if so, whether Athens made the below-cost bid with the prohibited purpose or intent. (Cel-Tech Communications v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 173-175.) That improper intent or purpose is described as a “conscious objective” and “positive desire” to injure competitors or destroy competition. (Ibid.) The proposed deponents have unique and superior personal knowledge of relevant facts concerning the purpose and intent of the bid because they were two of the four members of the board who voted to approve the Thousand Oaks bid after hearing and receiving all information presented to the board. They are the most knowledgeable witnesses to provide the actual intent and purpose of Athens in presenting the bid. (9) The Court finds that, at this juncture of the pre-trial discovery process in this action, WM is not required to propound additional written discovery or take more employee and lesser officer depositions prior to taking the two apex officer/board member depositions at issue. It is sufficient that WM has demonstrated good cause to take these two apex officer/board member depositions. The Court finds that Athens has failed to demonstrate that WM has noticed these two depositions for any improper purpose, including but not limited to unduly burdening, oppressing or harassing the deponents or Athens. (10) For all of the above reasons, the Court DENIES the motion. Counsel for Athens shall serve and file a notice of ruling consistent with the above. A copy of this Tentative Decision (if adopted by the Court as its final ruling without modification) or of the Clerk’s Minutes may be attached to and incorporated by reference in any such notice in lieu of quoting same verbatim in the body of the notice.

IN RE J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC Case Number: 24CV-0205373 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights: Petitioner J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC seeks Court approval to transfer a portion of Payee Brenda Hart’s annuity payment to Petitioner. The Petition seeks to transfer Payee’s structured settlement annuity comprising: A) 60 monthly payments of $328 each, beginning September 1, 2024, and ending August 1, 2029, and B) 1 payment of $75,000 on June 1, 2032. In exchange, the Payee will receive $44,000.00. Insurance Code §10134 et seq sets forth the various requirements for the transfer of a structured settlement. Ins. Code §10136 requires specific language in the form of a disclosure and further provides requirements related to the transfer agreement. A disclosure in compliance with Ins. Code §10136 has been provided as Exhibit B to the Petition. The California Purchase Contract (Exhibit A to Petition) contains the contractual provisions required by Ins. Code §10136. Ins. Code §10138 prohibits certain provisions from being included in the transfer agreement. The California Purchase Contract does not contain any of the provisions expressly prohibited by Ins. Code §10138. The Notice of Hearing was timely served on all interested parties. The procedural requirements have been satisfied. The Court must determine whether the transfer is “fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of his or her dependents.” Ins. Code §10137(a). The Petition lacks a supporting Declaration. The Petition states at page 4, ln. 10-15 that Payee would file a Declaration setting forth Payee’s basis for entering into this transaction, including an explanation why Payee feels it is in their best interest. As of the date of the preparation of this tentative ruling, no such declaration has been filed. This matter is continued to Monday, August 12, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64 for further proceedings on the Petition. The Court also notes that Petitioner did not provide a proposed Order as required by Local Rule of Court 5.17(D). No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

SIERRA PACIFIC WAGE AND HOUR CASES Case Number: 5235 Tentative Ruling on Case Management Conference: This coordinated proceeding is on calendar for a Case Management Conference. The Court has reviewed the Case Management Conference Statements filed by all parties. STAY. The McDonald matter remains stayed pending appeal. The Court notes that the parties in the Smith case recently submitted a Stipulation and Order seeking a stay of that matter. This was returned by the clerk due the proposed order not being lodged separately. Additionally, the Stipulation was not fax filed and did not contain original signatures. STAFFING AGENCY EMPLOYEES. The Court anticipates receiving a Stipulation and Order in the McDonald case that seeks to change the Court’s previous ruling that employes placed at SPI by staffing agencies fall under the class definitions. The Court has an obligation to all class members and intends to discuss the reasons for this change at today’s hearing. The Court expects that any Stipulation presented will clearly provide valid reasons for this proposed change. DISCOVERY. The Courts notes Plaintiff McDonald’s frustration with not receiving discovery from SPI during the stay. The Court is not able to rule on any discovery issues during the stay and parties are not obligated to provide discovery during the stay. FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE. The Court intends to set a further Case Management Conference and will discuss available dates with counsel.

FL-23-003195 – HUGHES VS HUGHES-KNOTT Respondent’s Request for Order re Compel Disclosures, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice, as moot. Petitioner has filed proof of service re service of the subject preliminary declarations of disclosure on July 19, 2024.  The order request is therefore moot.  However, the Court will reserve jurisdiction over the question of conduct-based sanctions and/or fiduciary breach for delay in service of the mandatory disclosures, but Respondent’s request for terminating sanctions against Petitioner is denied.  It would be an abuse of discretion to impose terminating sanctions against a party in the first instance for non-compliance, a penalty that is usually a last resort when all other lesser remedial measures have failed. The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:

FLORES VS. HUDSON Case Number: 24CV-0204646 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued on June 13, 2024, to Plaintiff Eladio Flores, in pro per, for failure to timely serve pleadings on Defendant Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson (Katy Perry) pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b). “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” CRC 3.110(b). The Complaint in this matter was filed on March 29, 2024, and no proof of service has been filed. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the Order to Show Cause. With no sufficient excuse for the delay, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order of Sanctions. The Court will issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal pursuant to Gov’t Code Section 68608(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the complaint. The hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is set for Monday, September 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. This matter is also calendared on Monday, September 9, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64 for review regarding status of service.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2024CUPT025407: IN THE MATTER OF: JASON HOWARD HORTON, JR. 07/24/2024 in Department 21 OSC - Name Change The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at 805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Tentative Ruling The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Petition for Change of Name pending filing of a Proof of Publication of the Court’s Order to Show Cause in THE ACORN for four consecutive weeks, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1277, subd. (a)1 and the Court’s May 28, 2024, Order to Show Cause. 1 Providing, in pertinent part, that: “…(2)(A) A copy of the order to show cause shall be published pursuant to Section 6064 of the Government Code in a newspaper of general circulation to be designated in the order published in the county. If no newspaper of general circulation is published in the county, a copy of the order to show cause shall be posted by the clerk of the court in three of the most public places in the county in which the court is located, for a like period. Proof shall be made to the satisfaction of the court of this publication or posting, at the time of the hearing of the application. 2024CUPT025407: IN THE MATTER OF: JASON HOWARD HORTON, JR. Analysis Code of Civil Procedure section 1277 provides in pertinent part: “…(2)(A) A copy of the order to show cause shall be published pursuant to Section 6064 of the Government Code in a newspaper of general circulation to be designated in the order published in the county. If no newspaper of general circulation is published in the county, a copy of the order to show cause shall be posted by the clerk of the court in three of the most public places in the county in which the court is located, for a like period. Proof shall be made to the satisfaction of the court of this publication or posting, at the time of the hearing of the application. (3) Four weekly publications shall be sufficient publication of the order to show cause. If the order is published in a daily newspaper, publication once a week for four successive weeks shall be sufficient.” (3) Four weekly publications shall be sufficient publication of the order to show cause. If the order is published in a daily newspaper, publication once a week for four successive weeks shall be sufficient.”