Cape Cod Plastering, Inc. V Capitol Construction Services, Llc Et Al

Case Number: 23TRCV00741 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: B Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Southwest District Torrance Dept. B FRANCISCO BRIGIDO NAVA, Plaintiff, Case No.: 23TRCV00741 vs. [Tentative] RULING MARIA GOMEZ RUIZ, Defendant. Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Moving Parties: Attorney Hector C. Perez, for defendant and cross-complainant Greg Jara Responding Party: None Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel The Court considered the moving papers. RULING The motion is DENIED without prejudice. Rule of Court 3.1362(c). BACKGROUND On March 15, 2023, plaintiffs Francisco Brigido Nava and Maria Gomez Ruiz filed a complaint against Greg Jara for (1) negligence, (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (3) wrongful eviction, and (4) fraud. On May 1, 2023, defendant Greg Jara filed a cross-complaint against plaintiffs for (1) abuse of elder person and (2) IIED. LEGAL STANDARD The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal. App. 2d 398. CRC Rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as CounselCivil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as CounselCivil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as CounselCivil form (MC-053)). DISCUSSION Defendant and cross-complainant Greg Jaras attorney, Hector C. Perez, seeks to be relieved as counsel. Rule of Court 3.1362(c) states: The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-052 ). (Bold added.) Counsel states in his declaration that his client advised him that he did not want counsel to work on the matter anymore and that his client is in the process of hiring another attorney. The motion is DENIED without prejudice as the declaration is not on the mandatory form MC-052. ORDER The motion is DENIED without prejudice. Moving counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

22CV007971: WRIGHT vs GREEN 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Appoint Appraiser; filed by Michael C. Wright (Plaintiff) in Department 518 Tentative Ruling - 07/16/2024 Victoria Kolakowski The Motion re: Motion to Appoint Appraiser Pursuant to Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act filed by Michael C. Wright on 05/02/2024 is Granted in Part. I. Background Plaintiff Michael Wright (10% owner) sued his brother, Defendant Colton Green (90% owner), to partition a duplex in Oakland, California. (Compl., Mar. 4, 2022.) Green filed an answer, specifically admitting and denying some allegations, and asserting several affirmative defenses. (Am. Answer, Oct. 21, 2022.) In December 2023, the Court issued an interlocutory judgment of partition, appointed a partition referee, and ordered the sale of the duplex, among other orders. (Interlocutory J., Dec. 12, 2023. ) The following year, Wright moved for an order appointing an appraiser to determine the value of the property. (Mot., May 2, 2024.) Wright also requested that the Court order the parties to pay for the appraisal in proportion to their respective interests. (Id.) Green opposed. (Opp’n Mem., July 5, 2024.) II. Discussion The Court notes that Green’s opposition does not address the propriety of appointing an appraiser. (See generally id.) Instead, Green’s opposition devotes space to argue that apportioning costs and offsets is improper in this case under the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act and that the Court erred in its June 13, 2024 order. (See generally id.) Accordingly, the Court treats this failure to address Wright’s point as a concession of the merits of Wright’s request to appoint an appraiser. (See also Reply Mem. 3:18–4:2 (indicating that Green agreed to the appointment of an appraiser), July 11, 2024.) The Court defers ruling on Wright’s request to apportion the costs of the appraisal. The Court will determine the propriety of this request under the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act at the conclusion of this action upon a complete evidentiary record. III. Orders The motion is GRANTED in part as to appointment of appraiser and DENIED without prejudice in part as to apportionment of appraisal costs. The Court appoints Allen Meacham (license number 00188) to appraise the property. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV007971: WRIGHT vs GREEN 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Appoint Appraiser; filed by Michael C. Wright (Plaintiff) in Department 518 PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing. To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following: First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion. Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed." Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting. Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984 Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line) --- Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 19, 2024 line 4. PLAINTIFF EAST WEST BANK, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING OF STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PLAINTIFF EAST WEST BANK AND KEVIN SINGER, RECEIVER: is GRANTED. No opposition filed. Moving party to prepare an order. =(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.

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 17, 2024 line 5. DEFENDANT JONATHAN POWELL , AN INDIVIDUAL Notice Of Joinder And Joinder In Defendant Portia L. Osbornes Notice Of Motion And Motion To Strike Portions Of Plaintiff'S First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. =(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: 21STCV45782 Hearing Date: July 22, 2024 Dept: 20 Tentative Ruling Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 20 Hearing Date: July 22, 2024 Case Name: Lanksherman Plaza, LLC, et al. v. West American Insurance Company, et al. Case No.: 21STCV45782 Matter: Motions to Compel Further Responses (2x) Moving Party: Defendant West American Insurance Company Responding Party: Plaintiffs Lanksherman Plaza, LLC and Dannys Liquor & Market, Inc. Notice: OK Ruling: The Motions are granted. Moving parties 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. On December 14, 2021, Plaintiffs Lanksherman Plaza, LLC (Lanksherman) and Dannys Liquor & Market, Inc. (Dannys Liquor) filed the operative Complaint for (1) breach of contract (Lanksherman against Defendant West American Insurance Company (West)), (2) breach of contract (Dannys Liquor against Defendant Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (Mass)), and (3) negligence/negligent entrustment (both Plaintiffs against Defendants Turcios Trucking, Inc., Francisco Aparicio, Romero Turcios). The allegations of the Complaint are as follows. Lanksherman owns certain commercial property located at 7202 Lankershim Boulevard, North Hollywood, California 91605. Dannys Liquor operates a business at this property. Francisco Aparicio negligently drove a tractor-trailer into the subject property, causing damage. Defendants Turcios Trucking, Inc. and Romero Turcios are the owners of the tractor-trailer and negligently entrusted Aparicio with such tractor-trailer. West provided property/commercial liability insurance to Lanksherman for the subject property and breached that policy by failing to pay all damages covered by the policy. Mass provided a businessowners policy to Dannys Liquor and breached that policy by failing to pay all damages covered under the policy. West now seeks to compel further responses to most of its requests for production, set one, nos. 1-87 from Plaintiffs Lanksherman and Dannys Liquor. The responses were all essentially as follows: Objection: attorney-client privilege, work product. Without waiving this objection, all responsive documents that can be located on a diligent search and reasonable inquiry will be produced. While nearly sufficient, Plaintiffs apparently failed to indicate what documents relate to what requests. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280(a).) Further, Plaintiffs should remove their reference to documents that can be located, if any, or other similar phrases. If something cannot be found then a response should be provided pursuant to CCP § 2031.230. Finally, if documents are being withheld on the basis of a privilege, then the basis for that privilege must be explained or a privilege log must be provided. In sum, the Motions are granted. Further responses are to be provided within 30 days. The Court awards reduced sanctions in the total amount of $1,000. Plaintiffs are jointly and severally liable for this sum. Moving parties 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.

Case Number: 23STCV12604 Hearing Date: July 22, 2024 Dept: 17 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 17 TENTATIVE RULING ANTHONY KIM vs. EUNICE J. BODAK Case No.: 23STCV12604 Hearing Date: July 22, 2024 Bodaks motion to set aside the entry of default is GRANTED. On 6/2/2023, Plaintiff Anthony Kim, in pro per, filed suit against Eunice J. Bodak, Sunok Ham Lee, Chares C. Yoo, Grace Eunhye Ryu, Wisdom Jeehye Ryu, alleging quiet title. On 6/14/2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against the same parties alleging the same claim. On 9/12/2023, Complainants Charles C. Yoo, Grace Eunhye Ryu, and Wisdom Jeehye Ryu filed a cross-complaint against Eunice J. Bodak, alleging: (1) abuse of process; (2) fraud; (3) indemnification; (4) equitable contribution; and (5) declaratory relief. On 1/18/2024, default was entered against Eunice J. Bodak (Bodak). Now, Bodak moves to set aside the entry of default. Discussion Bodak argues that default should be set aside because she was never actually served. In support, Bodak notes that the Proof of Service indicates personal service by the process server on 12/13/2023 at 6:10 pm. However, at the time of the alleged service, Bodak did not reside at the location where she was purportedly served. ( See Motion, Exh. 2.) Moreover, at the time of alleged service, she was living with her mother at her mothers residence as the conservator. Cross-Complainants filed a notice of no objection to this motion. Based on the foregoing, Bodaks motion to set aside the entry of default is granted. It is so ordered. Dated: July , 2024 Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org . If a party submits on the tentative, the partys email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar . For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.

HG19018129: Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP VS Ferris 07/15/2024 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs filed by Minh Ngoc Thi Ferris (Defendant) in Department 19 Tentative Ruling - 07/11/2024 Joscelyn Jones The Motion to Tax Costs filed by Minh Ngoc Thi Ferris on 05/14/2024 is Granted. The Motion by Defendant and Cross-Complainant Minh Ngoc Thi Ferris to Strike the Memorandum of Costs filed by Costs filed by Cross-Defendant Lorie Williams is GRANTED. Williams prevailed in two special motions to strike, directed at two different cross-complaints (one filed by Ming Ngoc Thi Ferris, one filed by Michael Ferris.) Williams then filed one Memorandum of Costs that does not identify or distinguish which costs were incurred in defending against which cross-complaint. Williams’ failure to do so makes her Memorandum of Costs defective and inadequate. This case is distinguishable from Acosta v. SI Corp. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1376, cited by Williams, in which a defendant was sued by several plaintiffs who were represented by a single law firm and pursued a single cause of action against the defendant. Here, Minh Ngoc Thi Ferris and Michael Ferris were represented by separate counsel who filed separate cross-complaints that were the subject of two separate motions to strike. Even if the Court were to find that filing one Memorandum of Costs combining the costs of prevailing against two separate cross-complainants on two separate cross-complaints were procedurally appropriate, the Court cannot determine what costs were incurred by Williams in prevailing on those cross-complaints. The Memorandum of Costs provides no information as to how those costs were incurred, and the declaration of James Pagano apparently refers to exhibits that he did not attach to his declaration. Rather than sequentially numbering his exhibits, Pagano has attached exhibits “JLP-1”, “JLP-2”, “JLP-2A” through “JLP-2H”, and “JLP-3A” through “JLP-3B”, but his declaration (at paragraphs 10(A)-10(B)) refers to documents purportedly attached as Exhibits “JLP-4A” through “JLP-4H”.

21CV00921 OLSON v. RYAN DEFENDANT RYAN’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The motion is denied. Within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, a party may make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. (CCP § 1008.) Defendant has not offered any new facts, law or circumstances warranting reconsideration of the court’s March 25, 2024, Final Judgment. The court also notes that the proceeds from the partition sale have been distributed to the parties. (Referee’s Post-Disposition Report, 5/14/24.) The court orders the check received by the referee for $148.50 distributed to the referee for his unpaid hours in handling the close of escrow. (Referee Declaration, 6/4/24.) The court also discharges the referee. Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.