Crespo, Efrain Vs. Swanton, Scott Gregory Et Al

VOGES VS. HOUSER Case Number: 22CV-0200010 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of judgment/dismissal. At the last hearing on June 10, 2024, the Court was informed that Plaintiff was waiting on the final Medi-Cal lien. No status report has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Case Number: 22STCV09251 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 27 Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27 Petition To Approve Minors Compromise Hearing Date: ¿ 7/16/24 Claimant Name: James Martinez, a minor CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV09251 DANIEL LEE HOFFMAN, et al. vs GROUND RUNNERS EXPRESS, LLC Ruling: Grant TENTATIVE The Court excuses the personal appearance of Claimant and the guardian ad litem. Counsel may appear by telephone or video conference call. Under the proposed settlement, the gross settlement of $ 5 , 0 00.00 is set to be distributed as follows: $ 986.35 will be allocated for medical expenses, $ 1,250.00 for attorneys' fees, and $ 21.89 for costs. The net balance of $ 2,741.76 will be awarded to Claimant. The Court has reviewed the Petition and determined that all required information has been provided and all necessary attachments have been filed. The Court reviews the settlement and finds it fair and reasonable. The Court also finds the attorney s fees fair and reasonable. Based on the foregoing, the petition filed on 6/24/24 is GRANTED. The Court sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Compliance of Payment on____________________ IN DEPARTMENT SS-27 AT 8:30 AM. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STCV34893 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: B Araceli sanchez V. alicia rivera motion to Compel Discovery (x2) Date of Hearing: July 16, 2024 Trial Date: July 23, 2023 Department: B Case No.: 19STCV34893 Moving Party: Defendant Alicia Rivera Responding Party: None BACKGROUND On October 1, 2019, Plaintiff, Araceli Sanchez (Plaintiff), filed this action against Defendant, Alicia Rivera (Defendant) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. Defendant now moves for the Court to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Five) and Special Interrogatories (Set Three). In connection with each motion, Defendant requests the Court to impose $3,288 in monetary sanction against Plaintiff and/or her counsel of record. Defendant also requests the Court to impose evidentiary and issue sanctions. Trial is set for July 23, 2024. [Tentative] Ruling As a preliminary matter, the court finds that the instant motions are untimely. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.020, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. In this instance, trial is set for July 23, 2024. Therefore, any motion concerning discovery had to have been heard on or before July 8, 2024. Defendant could have either sought to have the instant motions advanced or permitted to be heard closer to trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.050, but Defendant chose to do neither. Accordingly, because the instant motions are untimely, the motions are denied. Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 23NWCV02507 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: C DEL CID v. FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. CASE NO.: 23NWCV02507 HEARING: 07/18/24 ADD ON Plaintiff IDALIA ESPINOZA DEL CIDs Motion to Set Aside Dismissal under CCP §473(b) is DENIED without prejudice . Moving Party to give notice. No Opposition filed as of July 15, 2024. This premises liability action was filed by Plaintiff on August 7, 2023. On March 26, 2024, Plaintiffs Complaint was dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiffs Counsels failure to appear for a Case Management Conference and OSC Re: Dismissal of the Entire Action for Plaintiffs Failure to Appear on 02/27/2024. (See 03/26/24 M.O.) Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal under CCP §473(b). On June 13, 2024, this matter was CONTINUED to July 11, 2024 due to Plaintiffs failure to attach a copy of a proposed pleading or amended complaint as required by CCP §473(b). Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended Motion. The Amended Motion filed on June 17, 2024 still does not have attached to it a proposed pleading or a copy of Plaintiffs proposed amended complaint. The Court notes that Exhibit B to the Motion does not state that it is a Proposed First Amended Complaint. Consequently, at the hearing on July 11, 2024, the Court issued the following Order: At the hearing, Plaintiff requested, and Defendant did not oppose, a brief continuance to lodge a First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to lodge a First Amended Complaint by July 15, 2024. The hearing is CONTINUED to July 18, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C. If lodged by July 15, 2024, the First Amended Complaint will be deemed filed on July 18, 2024. (Order, 07/11/24) As of July 16, 2024, no First Amended Complaint has been filed/lodged with this Court. The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted &. (emphasis added.) (CCP §473(b).) The Motion is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with the express terms of CCP §473(b). The Motion is DENIED without prejudice due to Plaintiffs failure to attach a copy of a pleading proposed to be filed therein as required by CCP §473(b). The terms of the code are mandatory; compliance is not optional.

C24-00392 CASE NAME: ROWS AT NORTH OF MARINA ASSOCIATION VS. TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC *MOTION/PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION FILED BY: TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC *TENTATIVE RULING:* See also Line 13. Defendants Taylor Morrison of California, LLC and William Lyon Homes, Inc. (the builder defendants) bring this Motin to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Stay Proceedings and seek attorneys’ fees for time and costs to bring this Motion. The Motion is opposed by Plaintiff Rows at North of Marina Association. Various subcontractor defendants jointly submitted a Reply in support of Defendants’ SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CA DEPARTMENT 12 JUDICIAL OFFICER: CHARLES S TREAT HEARING DATE: 07/11/2024 Motion. No brief was submitted by the architect defendant. This motion is taken off calendar for the time being, for the reasons discussed below. In short, the problem is that the present motion puts before the Court, for present decision, only about one-third of the overall arbitrability battle present in the case. Not only is there no pending motion that tees up the remaining parts of the dispute for the Court’s decision, and no comprehensive briefing on those parts – but indeed, the outcomes of those other parts of the dispute may bear directly on what result should be reached on the present pending motion. To explain a little more fully: The present motion is brought only by the builder defendants, Taylor Morrison and William Lyon; and this motion seeks only to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims directly against the builder defendants. If that were all there were to the case, it might make for an easy decision to grant the arbitration motion. But the motion can’t be easily decided in that vacuum, without considering the remainder of the case and its relation to the arbitrability issue. Indeed, plaintiff’s only substantial ground for opposing the present motion is precisely that plaintiff has also sued a number of other defendants – the subcontractor, and the architect – and the Court should not force only the plaintiff-versus-builder part of the case into arbitration while the plaintiff- versus-subcontractors part of the case remains in litigation, with the prospect of both wasteful duplication and inconsistent results. Plaintiff argues that its claims against the subcontractors are not themselves arbitrable. The subcontractors and builders argue, to the contrary, that plaintiff’s claims against the subcontractors (and, presumably, any cross-complaints yet to be brought) are equally arbitrable and ought likewise to be sent to the same arbitration. To date, however, no one has brought any motion seeking to enforce that result, and it is less than robustly briefed at this point. And further complicating the picture is the presence of the architect defendant. The builders and subcontractors appear to take the position that the architect (as a “design professional”) is likewise subject to the parties’ arbitration agreement – though it is not clear whether that means only plaintiff’s claims against the architect, or any cross-complaints that may be brought by or against the architect. However, it is not yet clarified whether there is any arbitration agreement to which the architect itself was ever a signatory or party. The architect has filed no brief on the subject, but has told the Court at CMC that it does not think it’s subject to arbitration and it is unwilling to go to arbitration. That issue is almost entirely unbriefed at this point. Nor does the Court have a clear idea of whether the architect portion of the overall dispute is distinct from, or factually intermingled with, the claims brought against (or potentially by) the builders and subcontractors. Accordingly, the Court wants to get all of these interrelated arguments before it at one time. It directs that the parties should meet and confer about what arbitration-related motions remain to be filed, and set a schedule for the filing and hearing of them along with the present motion. In other words, the Court has in mind setting a deadline by which (1) the subcontractor defendants will file a motion to compel arbitration against plaintiff, if they intend to do so; and (2) if the builders or subcontractors will file any motion to compel arbitration against the architect, if they intend to do so. Any such SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CA DEPARTMENT 12 JUDICIAL OFFICER: CHARLES S TREAT HEARING DATE: 07/11/2024 motions must be filed and served by August 9. The present arbitration motion will remain pending and need not be refiled, but the parties may wish to file superseding briefs to cover both the present motion and whatever additional motions they intend to file. There is also the sticky point of what happens next if the Court does grant arbitration motions relating to some, but not all, of the overall case. At the recent CMC the Court stated its general reluctance to allow this overall construction dispute to proceed simultaneously and in parallel in both arbitration and in litigation, if that can be helped. But there will remain the issue of whether the arbitration(s) should be stayed in favor of the litigation, or the litigation stayed in favor or the arbitration, or neither of those results. In this respect the Court points out the potentially conflicting demands of the FAA and the CAA, as discussed in (for example) Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1121-22, and Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376, 393. The parties should give this point better attention in their briefing going forward. The parties should meet and confer concerning a briefing schedule and a unified hearing date for any arbitration-related motions (or, if no more such motions are filed, for hearing of the present pending motion). To ensure that the case continues to move forward, the Court sets a case management conference for October 28, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to JOHNSON vs RIVERSIDE CVRI2303626 Form Interrogatories, Set One by COMMUNITY HOSPITAL RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL Tentative Ruling: The unopposed motion to compel is granted. In light of the fact that Plaintiff is acting on a fee waiver, the Court finds that sanctions are not appropriate. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses within thirty days without objection.

Case Number: 22STCV28564 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 26 07/18/24 Dept. 26 Rolf Treu, Judge presiding Christina Development Corporation v. Steven Raymond Short et al. ( 22STCV28564 ) Counsel for Plaintiff/opposing party: Steve Short, in Pro Per Counsel for Defendants/moving party: Debra Ellwood Meppen and Raymond L. Gill MOTION TO STRIKE LATE AMENDMENTS TO COMPLAINT OR ALTERNATIVELY NOTICE AND STATEMENT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF STEVE SHORTS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT ( filed 02/23/24) (amended notice filed on 03/08/24) TENTATIVE RULING The Motion To Strike Third Amended Complaint is granted. Demurrer is moot. I. BACKGROUND On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff Christina Development Corporation filed the complaint against Defendants Steve Raymond Short and Does 1 through 10 (collectively Defendants). The complaint alleges (1) tortious interference with contractual relations; (2) defamation; (3) civil harassment; (4) conversion; and (5) breach of contract. On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff Steve Short filed the case entitled Steve Short v. Christina Development Corporation; Christina Properties Limited, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 23VECV00203 for Labor Code violations against CDC, Christina Properties Limited, G&A Partners, LTD, David Allen Whitehead, Lawrence Norman Taylor, Adam Jacob Rosenkranz, Vincent Chan, Connor Stephen Wilks, JW Associates, LLC, Empire View Homes, LLC, and Crescent Hill Lofts, LLC. On March 10, 2023, Christina Development Corporation filed a notice of related cases with the case entitled Steve Short v. Christina Development Corporation; Christina Properties Limited, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 23VECV00203. On March 29, 2023, the Court found the two cases related and set an Order to Show Cause as to why the cases should not be consolidated. (Minute Order 3/29/23.) On April 20, 2023, the Court consolidated the two actions for all purposes. (Minute Order 4/20/23.) On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff Steve Short filed his First Amended Complaint. On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff Steve Short filed his Second Amended Complaint. On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff Steve Short filed an Amended Third Complaint. On June 5, 2024, Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to its Motion to Strike Late Amendments to Complaint or Alternatively Notice And Statement of Demurrer to Plaintiff Steve Shorts Third Amended Complaint. On March 8, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Motion, arguing that: · Plaintiffs amendments were untimely. · Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint is insufficiently pled breach of contract, harassment, retaliation, hostile work environment, not paying overtime, and loan fraud. · Plaintiff has had four attempts at amending the Complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition as of July 17, 2024. Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition on July 11, 2024. II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standard for Demurrer with Motion to Strike Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings that are not challengeable by demurrer (i.e., words, phrases, prayer for damages, etc.). ( See CCP §§ 435-437.) A party may file a motion to strike in whole or in part within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, however, if a party serves and files a motion to strike without demurring to the complaint, the time to answer is extended. (CCP §§ 435(b)(1), 435(c).) A motion to strike lies only where the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (CCP § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleadings or by way of judicial notice. (CCP § 437.) Demurrer [A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint. ( Lewis v. Safeway, Inc . (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co . (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. ( Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist . (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) The question of plaintiff's ability to prove these allegations is of no concern at the pleadings stage. (See Committee on Childrens Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp ., (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213-214. [It is not the ordinary function of a demurrer to test the truth of the plaintiff's allegations or the accuracy with which he describes the defendant's conduct.]) Meet and Confer Before filing a demurrer&the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (CCP § 430.41(a); see also CCP § 435.5 (imposing similar requirements for a motion to strike).) Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision (a) requires that [b]efore filing a¿motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer¿in person or by telephone¿with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the motion to strike. The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due and if they are unable to meet the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5(a)(2).)¿ The moving party must also file and serve a declaration detailing the meet and confer efforts.¿ ( Id .¿at (a)(3).)¿ If an amended pleading is filed, the parties must meet and confer again before a motion to strike may be filed to the amended pleading.¿ ( Id .¿at (a).)¿ Here, Moving Defendants sufficiently met and conferred. (Princi Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. B.) 1. Evidence in Support of the Motion Motion to Strike On December 14, 2023, the Court sustained Defendants demurrer to the six causes of action which are the subject of the instant demurrer, with leave to amend (the Demurrer Order). (Gill Decl. ¶ 5, Exhibit B.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file and serve his Third Amended Complaint (TAC) by January 15, 2024, but Plaintiff filed his TAC seven days late on January 22, 2024. (Gill Decl. ¶ 5, Exhibits C & D.) Therefore, Plaintiffs TAC is untimely and should be stricken under Rule 3.1320(i) of the California Rules of Court. Thus, the Motion to Strike is granted. Demurrer The demurrer is moot since the Motion to Strike was granted. 2. Evidence in Opposition to the Motion None. III. DISPOSITION Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion To Strike Third Amended Complaint. Demurrer is moot.

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.