Michelle Mcnees Vs Williams Auto And Transmission Repair

SMITH VS. BRIDGEWAY INN & SUITES, ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0203137 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (“OSC”) issued on May 29, 2024, to Plaintiffs and Counsel for their failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on May 28, 2024. No response to the OSC has been filed. The Court notes a Declaration of Ilan Rosen Janfaza was filed on May 28, 2024, which indicates the matter is not at issue. However, it does not address Plaintiffs and Counsel’s failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference. Sanctions will be imposed in the amount of $250. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order of Sanctions. The Court confirms hearing of the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal set for Monday, September 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64.

C23-01955 CASE NAME: NICOLE TRIPPIE VS. MISTY LEONE *HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: TO ENFORCE STIPULATION AND ORDER FILED BY: LEONE, MISTY *TENTATIVE RULING:* Appearance required.

Case Number: 23STCV22550 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 48 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ANTHONY BOUYER, Plaintiff, vs. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 23STCV22550 [TENTATIVE] ORDER OVERRULING DEMURRER; SETTING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: RETENTION OF COUNSEL Dept. 48 8:30 a.m. July 16, 2024 On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff Anthony Bouyer field this action against Defendants Little Caesar Enterprises Inc., Douglas Kwi Ching (as Trustee of The Douglas Kwi Ching and Kathy Kwang Nam Ching Revocable Trust Dated 10/19/99), and Kathy Kwang Nam Ching (as Trustee of The Douglas Kwi Ching and Kathy Kwang Nam Ching Revocable Trust Dated 10/19/99). On October 12, 2023, Douglas Kwi Ching filed a demurrer on behalf of himself and Kathy Kwang Nam Ching as Trustees. (Douglas Kwi Ching is not a licensed attorney. The Court further addresses this problem below.) There was no attempt to meet and confer before filing the demurrer, as is required under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a). (Fitzgerald Decl. ¶ 2.) DEMURRER A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. ( Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, accepting the alleged facts as true. ( Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.) Plaintiffs sole cause of action is for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Under the Act, business establishments must provide people with disabilities with equal access to their accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, and services. (Civ. Code, § 51.) The demurrer generally argues that Plaintiff is not a genuine customer, lacks standing to bring his claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, has unclean hands, and brought this frivolous action for improper purposes. (Demurrer at pp. 3-7.) Plaintiff alleges that he is substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, encountered barriers that prevented him from patronizing Defendants business, and was denied full and equal access to the business. (Complaint ¶¶ 1, 11, 22-27.) This sufficiently alleges that Plaintiff has standing to bring an action under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs other contentions involve factual issues and defenses that cannot be resolved on demurrer. The demurrer also argues that Plaintiff did not serve a mandatory prelitigation demand letter. (Demurrer at p. 5.) Civil Code section 55.3, subdivision (b) sets forth the items that must be included with each demand letter or complaint sent to or served upon a defendant or potential defendant alleging a construction-related accessibility claim. It does not require a demand letter; the additional information may be included with the service of a complaint. That is what happened here: the filed Proofs of Service reflect service of an Advisory Notice to Defendant and Important Advisory Information for Building Owners and Tenants along with the summons and complaint. The demurrer is OVERRULED. Douglas Kwi Ching and Kathy Kwang Nam Ching (as Trustees) are ordered to file an Answer no later than September 17, 2024. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Douglas Kwi Ching filed this demurrer on behalf of himself as Trustee of The Douglas Kwi Ching and Kathy Kwang Nam Ching Revocable Trust Dated 10/19/99 and on behalf of Kathy Kwang Nam Ching as Trustee of The Douglas Kwi Ching and Kathy Kwang Nam Ching Revocable Trust Dated 10/19/99. [Business and Professions Code] Section 6125 states, No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar. Under the statute, one who is not a licensed attorney cannot appear in court for another person. ( Ziegler v. Nickel (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 545, 547.) A trustees duties in connection with their role as trustee do not include the right to represent the trust in propria persona in an action involving the trust property. ( Id. at p. 548.) The actions of the trustee affect the trust estate and therefore affect the interest of the beneficiaries. A nonattorney trustee who represents the trust in court is representing and affecting the interests of the beneficiary and is thus engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. ( Id. at p. 549.) Douglas Kwi Ching is not a licensed attorney with the State Bar of California. He therefore cannot represent himself or Kathy Kwang Nam Ching as Trustees of the Trust. Douglas Kwi Ching and Kathy Kwang Nam Ching (as Trustees) must retain licensed counsel in order to file an Answer and further defend this action. [1] Any future filings made by Douglas Kwi Ching or Kathy Kwang Nam Ching as in propria persona Trustees will be stricken for being filed in violation of state law and this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) An Order to Show Cause Re: Retention of Counsel for Defendant Trustees is scheduled for September 17, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse. If Douglas Kwi Ching and Kathy Kwang Nam Ching (as Trustees) have not retained counsel and filed an Answer by that date, the Court may place them in default. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar. Dated this 16th day of July 2024 Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court [1] An individual named Jin Ree at East West Legal has contacted Plaintiff on behalf of Douglas Kwi Ching and Kathy Kwang Nam Ching as registered legal document assistant and certified interpreter and the authorized person for settlement and manager for remote control, etc. (Fitzgerald Decl. ¶¶ 2-3 & Ex. A.) Plaintiff provides a copy of the State Bars partial list of Unlicensed Practice of Law Cease and Desist Notices. Jin Ree, aka Jin Rie, dba East West Legal of Los Angeles was sent such a notice on February 8, 2022. As of the date of this order, Jin Ree/Rie still is not a licensed attorney with the State Bar of California and cannot file anything on behalf of other parties. At this time, the Court will not enter an order under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, subdivision (f)(1)(D)as requested by Plaintiff (Opposition at pp. 3-4)because Jin Ree has not engaged in any conduct before this Court and is not an attorney, law firm, or party in this action. Douglas Kwi Ching and Kathy Kwang Nam Ching are warned, however, that Jin Ree may not act as their counsel and cannot file the Answer on their behalf.

FRINK VS. MANKA Case Number: 23CV-0201842 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Amend Petition: Plaintiff Samuel E. Frink moves pursuant to CCP § 473 to file an Amended Verified Petition. Defendant Paul Manka filed an untimely opposition on July 10, 2024. The opposition was due nine court days prior to the hearing. CCP § 473(a)(1) permits any pleading to be amended in further of justice and on any terms as may be proper, after notice to the adverse party. The Court’s discretion in this regard will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 920, 939. “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” Morgan v. Sup.Ct. (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530. The Court finds that the motion was timely made and that granting the motion would be in the furtherance of justice. Defendant’s untimely opposition, which the Court has considered, objects to motion based on alleged procedural defects. In the interests of justice, the Court will exercise its discretion to overlook the procedural defects in Plaintiff’s motion, as well as to overlook the procedural defect of the untimely opposition. Defendant’s opposition requests the Court continue the existing trial and mandatory settlement conference, if the motion is granted. That issue is not properly before the Court. Defendant can file the appropriate motion, if he feels it is appropriate. The motion is GRANTED. A proposed order was not lodged with the Court as required by Local Rule 5.17(D). Plaintiff shall prepare the order. No copy of the proposed Amended Petition has been lodged with the Court for filing. Plaintiff shall submit a copy of the proposed Amended Petition for filing. Plaintiff is also required to immediately serve a copy of the filed Amended Petition on Defendant.

MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS RICE VS BERACO CVRI2306115 ADMITTED BY BERACO TRUCKING, TRUCKING, INC. INC., RUBEN DARIO ALDERETE Tentative Ruling: As responses have been received this motion is moot with the exception of the request for sanctions. As Defendant only raises this request in Reply the request for sanctions is denied.

Case Number: 21STCV44649 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: T Motion to Reclassify to Limited Jurisdiction Moving Party: Richard Cartier (Defendant) Responding Party: N/A Tentative Ruling: Deny BACKGROUND Plaintiff Bayron Enriquez Vazquez (Plaintiff) filed this action on December 8, 2021, for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident on July 28, 2020, alleging negligence. Plaintiff seeks special damages for the medical treatment he received as a result, amounting to a $8,525.00, in addition to $3,500 in damages his vehicle sustained. Plaintiff also estimates he will incur between $1,500 to $3,000 in medical costs for future treatment. (Motion to Reclassify, Exh. A Response to Interrogatory Form 1.1.) MOVING PARTY POSITION Defendant Richard Cartier (Defendant) filed this motion to reclassify the action as a limited jurisdiction action, arguing that Plaintiff does not seek relief for costs above the $35,000.00 threshold for unlimited jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion. ANALYSIS I. Defects As a preliminary matter, the court notes Defendants notice was untimely. Defendants notice (p. 7) to Plaintiff reflects that service was provided to Plaintiff via email on June 2516 court days before the July 18 hearing. Because service made via email extends the notice period by 2 court days, Defendant was untimely. ( (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(a)(3)(B).) II. Motion to Reclassify this Action as a Limited Jurisdiction Action CCP § 403.040 governs reclassification of civil cases. The court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification, regardless of any fault or lack of fault, if the case has been classified in an incorrect jurisdictional classification. (Code Civ. Proc.,, § 403.040(a).) A case should only be reclassified from unlimited to limited if the jurisdictional amount necessarily cannot be reached. (See Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 270-71.) This is a high standard that amounts to a legal certainty. ( Id. at 270) The court may believe it highly unlikely that plaintiff will recover the amount demanded, but this is not enough to defeat jurisdiction, unless it appears to a legal certainty that plaintiff cannot recover the amount which he has demanded. ( Id. ) CCP § 86(a)(1) classifies civil cases as limited when the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy amounts to thirty-five thousand ($35,000) or less. A. Amount in controversy The court initially notes the jurisdictional amount increased to $35,000 at the beginning of this year, but it does not appear the new statute is retroactive. ( See Civ. Code §§ 85-86.) Thus, the central issue to determine whether to reclassify this action as limited jurisdiction is whether it is a legal certainty that Plaintiff cannot recover over $25,000.00 from this case. ( Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 270.) Whether the new jurisdictional amount is retroactive and applicable to this case is immaterial, as Defendant still would not meet their burden for the reasons discussed below. Defendant points to Plaintiffs responses to form 1.1 interrogatories to assert that the total relief sought does not reach the jurisdictional amount required. Namely, Defendant indicates that Plaintiff incurred $12,025.00 in medical expenses and vehicle damage so far, and estimates up to $3,000.00 in additional costs for future medical expenses. (Motion to Reclassify, Exh. A Response to Interrogatory Form 1.1.) Defendant argues that because these total costsamounting to $15,025.00fall below the minimum requirement for unlimited jurisdiction, this action should be reclassified. ( Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Reclassification p. 3.) Here, it is not a legal certainty that Plaintiff will not recover over the jurisdictional minimum. Plaintiffs response to interrogatory no. 6.7 indicates that a healthcare provider advised Plaintiff that they will have between $1,500 to $3,000 in future medical costs attributable to Defendant, it does not speak directly to the issue of damages Plaintiff is seeking in this action. More specifically, Plaintiffs response to interrogatory no. 9.1 lists that he requests recovery for general damages, pain and suffering, and future medical expenses, all of which in the amount to be determined. Defendant has not addressed the potential for Plaintiff to recover for pain and suffering, nor the possibility that Plaintiffs future medical expenses will exceed the estimate his healthcare provider provided. Because of the especially uncertain nature of personal injury cases, failing to address all of Plaintiffs bases for recovery is especially problematicas Defendant did not conclusively show Plaintiff cannot receive above threshold required for unlimited jurisdiction. In turn, Defendant has not met the burden of showing the legal certainty required to reclassify the case to limited jurisdiction. RULING Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Reclassify is denied.

Case Number: 21STCV07431 Hearing Date: July 19, 2024 Dept: M CASE NAME: Wallach, et al., v. Providence Health System, et al. CASE NO.: 21STCV07431 MOTION: Approve Minors Compromise HEARING DATE: 7/19/202 4 Summary of Proposed Minors Compromise : Claimant¿ Time Wallach ¿(Claimant), a minor, by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, ¿David Wallach (Petitioner), agreed to settle their claims against Defendant Providence Saint John's Health Center under the following terms: Settlement to Minor: $1,143,136.11 Settlement to Others: David Wallach - $6,356,863.89 Injuries: Elizabeth Wallach died from a pulmonary embolism the day after giving birth to her daughter, Time Wallach. Time lost her mother's love, companionship, relationship, guidance and support as a result of her mother's wrongful death. Medical Expenses: None. Costs : Petitioner bears costs. Fees : $243,135.42. Counsel provides the retainer with a contingency fee. The terms provide that the Court will set the fee for representation of minor clients. (See ¶12.) The fee requested is approximately 21.26% of the recovery. The Court believes the fee request to be reasonable. Total Settlement $1,143,136.11 Less fees and costs -$243,135.42 Net Settlement $900,000.69 Petitioner proposes to dispose the funds as follows: i) $800,000.69 to be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court; and ii) $100,000.00 be transferred to the trustee of a trust that is either created by or approved in the order approving the settlement or judgment for the minor. Petitioner supplies the terms of the proposed annuity at attachment 18b(3) and trust at attachment 18b(7). These methods are permitted by L.A. County Super. Ct. Rule 4.115. Order : Claimant¿ Time Wallach ¿(Claimant), a minor, by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, ¿David Wallach (Petitioner), has agreed to settle their claims against Defendant Providence Saint John's Health Center in exchange for $1,143,136.11. The parties having appeared (CRC Rule 7.952(a)), and the Court having reviewed and heard the ¿Petition¿, the Court finds that the settlement is reasonable, and based thereon, approves and GRANTS the petition. (CRC Rule 7.950.) The Court intends to sign the proposed Orders (MC-351, MC-355). THE COURT SETS AN OSC RE COMPLIANCE/PROOF OF RECEIPT OF DEPOSIT ON September 24, 2024, at 8:30 AM. No appearance is required if the receipt is filed. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 22STCV28221 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 28 Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On August 30, 2022, Plaintiffs Paul Culver, Landon Culver, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Paul Culver , and Katrina Culver, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Paul Culver, filed this action against Defendants Karina Del Carmen Hussey (Defendant) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. On September 6, 2022, the Court appointed Paul Culver to serve as guardian ad litem for Plaintiffs Katrina Culver and Landon Culver. On January 24, 2024, Defendant filed an answer. On June 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement. On June 17, 2024, Petitioner Paul Culver (Petitioner) filed petitions for expedited approval of minors compromises. PETITIONERS REQUESTS Petitioner asks the Court to approve the compromises of the claims of Plaintiffs Katrina Culver and Landon Culver. DISCUSSION A. Katrina Culver The petition states that both Medicare and the claimants health plan will be reimbursed from the settlement proceeds for $1,440.00 in medical expenses. (Sections 13b(2), 13d.) Petitioner should explain whether both Medicare and the health plan are receiving this amount as reimbursement (and if so, why). (Section 17b of the petition shows only one reimbursement of $1,440.00.) Attachment 13b(2) describes a November 30, 2022 letter from the Rawlings Company as the Final Medicare agreement. (Attachment 13b(2).) It is unclear why a letter stating that The Rawlings Company is to receive $1,440.00 is a Final Medicare agreement. The petition does not provide any information showing that Medicare paid for any of the medical expenses. If Medicare is to receive $1,440.00 in reimbursement, Petitioner should explain why the attachment refers to The Rawlings Company and not to Medicare. (The proposed order states that $1,440.00 will be paid to The Rawlings Company and does not mention Medicare.) For the reasons stated above, the Court denies the petition. B. Landon Culver The petition states that $1,845.00 in medical expenses will be reimbursed from the settlement proceeds to Medicare. (Section 13b(2).) However, the attachment described as the Final Medicare agreement is a November 30, 2022 letter from the Rawlings Company. (Attachment 13b(2).) The letter states that The Rawlings Company is to receive the reimbursement. The petition does not provide any information showing that Medicare paid for any of the medical expenses. If Medicare is to receive $1,845.00 in reimbursement, Petitioner should explain why the attachment refers to The Rawlings Company and not to Medicare. (The proposed order states that $1,845.00 will be paid to The Rawlings Company and does not mention Medicare.) For the reasons stated above, the Court denies the petition. CONCLUSION The Court DENIES without prejudice the petition to approve the compromise of minor Plaintiff Katrina Culvers action filed by Petitioner Paul Culver on June 17, 2024. The Court DENIES without prejudice the petition to approve the compromise of minor Plaintiff Landon Culvers action filed by Petitioner Paul Culver on June 17, 2024. Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Petitioner is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.