Mcmahon, Mother And Next Friend Et Al V Mcneil

Case Number: 20STCV22354 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 32 PLEASE NOTE : Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that partys intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court . TENTATIVE RULING DEPT : 32 HEARING DATE : July 16, 2024 CASE NUMBER : 20STCV22354 MOTIONS : Petition for Minors Compromise MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Yan Yun Chen OPPOSING PARTY: Unopposed The Court has reviewed the Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action of a Minor, filed on June 6, 2024 by Petitioner Yan Yun Chen (Petitioner) on behalf of Claimant Curry Li, age 7. The Court GRANTS the petition. Petitioner has cured all defects identified in the previous petition. (See Min. Order, 5/21/24.) Petitioner shall give notice and file a proof of service of such.

C23-01084 CASE NAME: HELEN REESE VS. AMANDA HAGAR *HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: MOTION FOR ORDER QUASHING DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED TO HOME POINT FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND TO SYMMETRY LENDING FILED BY: *TENTATIVE RULING:* The motion to quash is granted. The Court awards Defendant sanctions in the amount of $2250.

Case Number: 22STCV39573 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 32 PLEASE NOTE : Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that partys intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court . TENTATIVE RULING DEPT : 32 HEARING DATE : July 16, 2024 CASE NUMBER : 22STCV39573 MOTIONS : Motion to be Relieved as Counsel MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ryan Caldwells Counsel OPPOSING PARTY: None BACKGROUND Plaintiff Ryan Caldwells (Plaintiff) counsel of record, Khashayar Eshraghi (Counsel), moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. Counsel contends relief is necessary because there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. No opposition has been filed for this motion. LEGAL STANDARD To be granted relief as counsel, counsel must comply with California Rules of Court (CRC) 3.1362. Even where grounds for termination exist, attorneys seeking to withdraw must comply with the procedures set forth in California Rule of Professional Conduct (CRPC) 3.700 and are subject to discipline for failure to do so. CRPC 3.700(B) lists various grounds for mandatory withdrawal. An attorney's right to terminate the attorney-client relationship and withdraw from a case is not absolute. (See Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.) The decision whether to grant or deny an application for withdrawal is within the court's discretion, and it does not abuse that discretion by denying the application on the ground that the attorney's withdrawal would work injustice upon a third party. ( Hodcarriers, Bldg. and Common Laborers Local Union No. 89 v. Miller (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 391.) The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients. ( Vann v. Shilleh , supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 192.) An attorney, either with client's consent or court's approval, may withdraw from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to client's interests; however, an attorney shall not withdraw from employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules. (CRPC 3.700(A)(2).) A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate by abandoning a client ( Pineda v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 753, 758 759), or by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the clients case. (CRPC 3.700(A)(2); Vann v. Shilleh , supra.) DISCUSSION Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) Counsel states the instant motion is filed for the following reason: This motion is based upon the grounds that there has been an irremediable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship that stands in the way of effective representation. (MC-052.) Counsel has provided information for all future proceedings in this case. Additionally, Counsel has been unable to confirm Plaintiffs address despite mailing the motion papers to Plaintiffs last known address, return receipt requested, calling Plaintiffs last known telephone number or numbers, attempting to contact Plaintiffs emergency contact, conducting a TLO search, and hiring a private investigator. However, the declaration in support states that Plaintiff was served by mail. (MC-052, item 3a(2).) This conflicts with the proof of service filed on July 8, 2024, showing that Plaintiff was served personally. Counsel provides no proof of service by mail. Additionally, the personal proof of service states that Plaintiff was served on July 1, 202410 court days before this hearing. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires written notice of a motion including the date, time and location of the hearing on a motion. A moving partys failure to serve the notice of motion and moving papers on a non-moving party violates the basic principles of procedural due process under the federal and state constitutions notice and an opportunity to be heard.¿ ( Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co . (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 428 [minimum due process requires notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case]; Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612 [due process principles require reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard].) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), moving papers must be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. Therefore, because Counsel did not provide the minimum notice period, the motion to be relieved is denied on procedural grounds. Additionally, as stated in the previous minute order, the proposed order does not contain Plaintiffs full zip code. (See Min. Order, 5/29/24.) Counsel must correct the zip code in a subsequent motion. Also, the service indicated in MC-052, item 3 must accurately reflect the type of service in the proof of service. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to relieve counsel. Counsel shall provide notice of the Courts ruling and file proofs of service of such.

23CV01706 BAKER v. FUTURE MOTION (UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF BAKER’S MOTION TO APPOINT SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST The unopposed motion is granted. Brittany Baker, plaintiff’s surviving spouse, is appointed plaintiff’s successor in interest in this action. 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.

Case Number: 22LBCV00894 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: S27 1. Background Facts Plaintiff, Claire Stanford filed this action against Defendants, The Palisades Association, Inc., Long Beach Home Solutions, Inc., Boris Bogomolny, and Renee Bogomolny for damages arising out of a fall down a staircase at her apartment complex. 2. Motion for New Trial a. Trial This case was tried to a jury from 4/16/24 to 4/22/24. At the conclusion of the trial, Plaintiff made a motion for a mistrial, which was denied. The jury found in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. On 5/13/24, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. b. Grounds for Motion Plaintiff moves for a new trial based on: (1) Irregularity in the proceedings of the Court (CCP § 657(1)); (2) Irregularity in the proceedings of the jury (CCP § 657(1)); (3) Irregularity in the proceedings caused by (adverse party) (CCP § 657(1)); (4) Improper orders of the Court (CCP § 657(1)); (5) Abuse of discretion by the Court (CCP § 657(1)); (6) Accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against (CCP § 657(3)); and (7) Error in law occurring at the trial and objected to by the moving party (CCP § 657(7) Substantively, Plaintiff argues a new trial is necessary because: (1) The Court did not allow her to demonstrate how she fell; (2) The Court did not allow Plaintiffs expert to use demonstrative evidence to show the severity of the condition on which she fell; and (3) The Court did not allow Plaintiff to submit testimony showing the reasonableness of her medical bills. c. Initial Note While Plaintiffs notice of motion indicates she is moving for a new trial on seven delineated grounds, her points and authorities are not clear concerning what ground she is moving on. §III(A) of her brief purports to brief irregularities in the proceedings under §657(1). Her very short argument thereafter incorporates other aspects of §657(1). The Court notes that the full text of §657(1) provides for a new trial when there is: Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial. The Court will do its best to rule on the motion based on all of the asserted grounds, but is doing so without the benefit of meaningful briefing from Plaintiff concerning which grounds she contends support which substantive argument in her moving papers. d. Law Governing Motion for New Trial Under §657(1) A new trial may be granted for: 1. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial. CCP §657(1). As will be seen, irregularity is broadly interpreted to encompass many forms of misconduct and error that would also be ground for mistrial or reversal on appeal. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court: This phrase refers to conduct other than orders and rulings and reaches matters that may have to be proved by affidavit rather than by exceptions on the record during trial. It includes personal misconduct by the trial judge or any departure by the court from the due and orderly method of disposition of an action by which the substantial rights of a party have been materially affected. Montoya v. Barragan (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1226, 1229-1230. CCP § 657(1) also authorizes new trials based on any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial. CCP § 657(1). Evidentiary rulings by which relevant evidence was erroneously excluded (or conversely, irrelevant evidence erroneously admitted) may be ground for a new trial if prejudicial to the moving party's right to a fair trial. Marriage of Carlsson (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 281, 294. This may include the erroneous exclusion of expert testimony. People ex rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Clauser/Wells Partnership (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1084-1086. e. Demonstrative Evidence Plaintiffs first argument is that the Court erred in refusing to permit her expert to use demonstrative evidence to show the severity of the condition on which she fell. Plaintiff contends she offered to present the dog, the leash, and the laundry basket for the purpose of showing the weight of each object and to show she could not have been tripped by the leash, which was retractable. Plaintiff cites various cases from more than fifty years ago that collectively establish the trial court has the discretion to permit introduction of demonstrative evidence when it will clarify a witnesss testimony. As an initial note, Defendants correctly establish, in their opposition, that Plaintiff failed to provide evidence sufficient to support her position in this regard. The sole evidence is her attorneys declaration, which conclusively states that she was not allowed to introduce this evidence. Counsel does not state whether and when the evidence was proffered, whether it was proffered in a procedurally proper manner, or what ruling the Court made on any such proffer. While Defendants address this issue in opposition, Plaintiff fails to address it in reply, effectively conceding the deficiency of the moving papers. Even if the Court were to find the evidence sufficient, the Court finds any ruling it made in this regard was correct. Evidence Code §352 permits the Court to exclude any evidence that would be more prejudicial than probative. Permitting a plaintiff to bring a dog into a courtroom would be highly disruptive and unusual. Notably, Plaintiff failed to show that she could not simply testify as to the weight of the dog, the weight of the laundry basket, and the retractable quality of the leash, and that this would not be sufficient for the jury to deliberate on the issue. f. Dangerousness of Stairs Plaintiffs next argument is that the Court erred in refusing her to introduce demonstrative evidence showing the dangerousness of the stairs. Specifically, she contends the Court refused to permit her expert to write the measurements of each individual stair on the photo of the stairs, which would have shown the substantial deviations from the building code. Plaintiffs second argument suffers from the same evidentiary deficiency as her first argument. She fails to show that she attempted to introduce this evidence, how she attempted to do so, or what ruling was made concerning this evidence. Additionally, the Court finds Plaintiff was welcome to introduce testimony about any deviations from the building code, and Plaintiff failed to show any order precluding her from writing this testimony on a photograph was not prejudicial. g. Reasonableness of Medical Bills Plaintiffs third argument is that the Court erred in refusing to permit her expert, Dr. Ghodadra, to testify concerning the reasonableness of her medical bills. Plaintiff argues, in her moving papers, that this error was prejudicial because she was not allowed to show the severity of her damages or the necessity of her treatment. This argument fails for the same reason stated above; again, Plaintiff did not provide any evidence showing what testimony she attempted to introduce, how she attempted to do so, or what court order was issued precluding her from doing so. Additionally, the jury verdict was rendered based on a finding that there was no dangerous condition, and therefore any evidence of medical damages was not relevant to the verdict. Plaintiff, in reply, argues this evidence was necessary for credibility reasons. She did not make this argument in her moving papers, and cannot raise it for the first time in reply. h. Conclusion Plaintiffs motion for a new trial is denied on both procedural and also substantive grounds, as discussed fully above. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org . 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 . 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 any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.

Case Number: 24STCV03402 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 48 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT MEDINA CULVER D.O., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. COUNTER BRANDS, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 24STCV03402 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION; CONTINUING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION Dept. 48 8:30 a.m. July 16, 2024 On May 17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (SAC) against Defendants Counter Brands LLC and Counter Brands Inc. There is no proof of service on file for Counter Brands LLC, and it has not yet responded to the SAC. On June 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of documents in response to a subpoena served on non-party Susan Gregg Renfrew. On July 11, 2024, Counter Brands Inc. filed a motion to compel arbitration. On July 15, 2024, Plaintiffs dismissed Counter Brands Inc. Also on July 15, 2024, non-party Susan Gregg Renfrew filed an ex parte application for leave to file a supplemental opposition to the motion to compel, in light of changed circumstances arising from the dismissal of Counter Brands Inc. The ex parte application is GRANTED. The Hearing on Motion to Compel Production in Response to Subpoena to Susan Gregg Renfrew is CONTINUED to October 24, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Non-party Susan Gregg Renfrew may file a supplemental opposition, and Plaintiffs may file a supplemental reply, pursuant to statutory notice periods based on the new hearing date. The Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Counter Brands Inc. (scheduled for November 19, 2024) is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. Clerk 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

LADIANA VS THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE ON CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT CVRI2302344 COMPLAINT FOR AUTO (OVER OF CORRECTIONS AND $25,000) OF MALLORY LADIANA REHABILITATION Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Set Aside Dismissal is granted. Order to Show Cause is set for 9/10/24 AGAINST GARY LOFTIS and MALLORY LADIANA, as to why sanctions not to exceed $1,500.00 or dismissal should not be imposed for Failure to file request for entry of default of ALL defendants on complaint pursuant to CRC 3.110(g).

CV-22-005931 – RAMIREZ, CATALINA vs SUPERCUTS INC – a) Defendant Supercuts, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Defendant Supercuts Corporate Shops, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED, and unopposed. a)-b) Having considered the moving papers, the separate statement of undisputed material facts, and the evidence submitted in conjunction with the supporting declaration, the Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, has met its burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the claims asserted against it herein. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).) The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to introduce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a material factual dispute preventing judgment for the moving Defendant. As Plaintiff has failed to do so, Defendant is entitled to judgment herein.