Jessica Kunitz Vs. Christopher Collord

Case Number: 21STCV21293 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: F47 Dept. F47 Date: 7/9/24 TRIAL DATE: 1/27/25 Case #21STCV21293 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Motion filed on 1/9/24. MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Phyllis R. Ginolfi, by and through her Conservator, Christin C. Solis RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant HDL, Inc. dba Pacoima Adult Day Care RELIEF REQUESTED : A protective order preventing and continuing the deposition of key fact witness, Miriam Muwummuza. RULING : The motion is placed off calendar. SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY This action arises out of an alleged fall that occurred while Plaintiff Phyllis Ginolfi (Plaintiff) attended Defendant/Cross-Complainant HDL, Inc. dba Pacoima Adult Day Cares (HDL) adult day care facility on 8/20/19. On 8/20/19, Plaintiff was transported to and from HDLs facility by a paratransit van operated by Defendant/Cross-Defendant Keolis Transit America, Inc. (Keolis). On 6/7/21, Plaintiff filed this action against HDL and Defendant/Cross-Defendant Right Choice In-Home Care, Inc. for: (1) Dependent Adult/Elder Abuse and (2) Negligence. Keolis was later named in place of Doe 1. On 1/9/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking a protective order preventing and continuing the deposition of key fact witness, Miriam Muwummuza, which was scheduled for 1/11/24. No opposition or other response to the motion has been filed. ANALYSIS Plaintiff seeks the subject protective order due to the unavailability of Plaintiffs counsel on 1/11/24, the date of the deposition due to being engaged in trial in another matter on that date. ( See Gambardella Decl. ¶3). Plaintiffs attorney notes that the instant motion was set for the earliest available date, 7/9/24, and then states: Plaintiff subsequently make an ex parte application to advance the hearing date so that this important discovery can be taken in a timely manner and well before the MSC on April 18, 2024. (Gambardella Decl. ¶3). Plaintiff never made an ex parte application to advance the hearing date on this motion. Given that the date of the deposition has long since passed, the requested relief is moot. CONCLUSION The motion is placed off calendar.

S-CV-0052402 Tierney, Ainsley vs. Raddigan, Ryann Elizabeth et al No appearance required. CMC is continued to 10/07/24 at 2pm in Dept. 6. Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to Defendant(s): Raddigan, Jared; Raddigan Ryann Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Raddigan, Jared; Raddigan Ryann Per Local Rule 20.1.7 D. If a party or attorney has a conflict with future hearing dates set in the Case Management Conference calendar notes, or opposes the future dates set in the Case Management Conference calendar notes, the party or attorney must appear at the Case Management Conference. That attorney or party must provide at least 7 days’ notice to all other parties in the case of their intent to appear at the Case Management Conference. [Effective 1/1/19] 07/15/2024 CMC in Dept. 6 at 3 PM Calendar Notes

Case Number: 22PSCV01925 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: 6 CASE NAME: Michael Rosas, et al. v. OC Auto Exchange dba LA Auto Exchange, et al. Motion to be Relieved as Plaintiffs Counsel TENTATIVE RULING The Court GRANTS the motion. Plaintiffs Counsel must resubmit a correct and complete proposed order prior to the hearing, addressing the items discussed above, including the correct courthouse address in the caption and noting that the order is effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order (Item 5.a.). Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five calendar days. BACKGROUND This is a fraud action. On November 21, 2022, plaintiffs Michael Rosas and Odalys Rosas (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants OC Auto Exchange dba LA Auto Exchange, a California corporation, Western Surety Company, a South Dakota corporation, Capital One Auto Finance Inc., a Texas Corporation (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 10. On February 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for fraud & deceit, negligent misrepresentation, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, action for rescission of sales contract for sale of goods pursuant to California [ sic ] Code section 1698, violation of California Civil Code section 1632, violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty [ sic ], Civil Code section 1790, et seq., violation of the Consumers [ sic ] Legal Remedies Act Equitable and Injunctive Relief, and violation of Vehicle Code section 11711. On September 5, 2023, Ben Roberts of Law Office of Ben Roberts moved to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion. On March 25, 2024, the Court denied the motion without prejudice. On June 13, 2024, Ben Roberts of Law Office of Ben Roberts moved to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion. 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, 403-407.) A motion to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, subd. (d).) DISCUSSION Ben Roberts of Law Office of Ben Roberts (Counsel) seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Michael Rosas and Odalys Rosas. Counsel contends he and his firm have lost all contact with Plaintiffs. (Roberts Decls., ¶ 2.) Grounds for permitting an attorney to withdraw from representation include the clients conduct that renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively[.] (Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16, subd. (b)(4).) A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is also grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw. ( Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.) While the Court finds Plaintiffs lack of communication sufficient grounds for permitting withdrawal, the Court finds a few issues with Counsels motions that need to be fixed. First, each of the Judicial Council forms Counsel filed with the Court show that Counsel provided the wrong courthouse contact information in the caption of each document. Counsel provided the following contact information: 1427 West Covina Parkway, Compton, CA 90220. The correct courthouse address is 1427 West Covina Parkway, West Covina, CA 91790. Nevertheless, the proof of service filed on June 13, 2024, lists the correct courthouse address and the declaration provides the correct courthouse address for the Post-Arbitration Status Conference. The Court will not deny the motion on this ground but admonishes Counsel to carefully proofread documents to ensure they are accurate. Second, the proposed order does not include the Post-Arbitration Status Conference scheduled for July 30, 2024. On May 13, 2024, the Courts minute order provided the new date. The motions to be relieved as counsel were filed on June 13, 2024, therefore, counsel was aware of the new date but failed to include it in the proposed order. The proposed order is also incomplete in that items 3, 5, 6, 9 and as previously discussed, item 7, have not been completed. Notwithstanding, the Court GRANTS the motion. Plaintiff must resubmit a correct and complete proposed order prior to the hearing, addressing the items discussed above, including the correct courthouse address in the caption and noting that the order is effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order (Item 5.a.). CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS the motion. Plaintiffs Counsel must resubmit a correct and complete proposed order prior to the hearing, addressing the items discussed above, including the correct courthouse address in the caption and noting that the order is effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order (Item 5.a.). Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five calendar days.

Case Number: 23AHCV02312 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: X Tentative Ruling Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X HEARING DATE: July 9, 2024 TRIAL DATE: not set CASE: Jennifer Merrick, et al. v. Kamal Preet Singh, et al. CASE NO.: 23AHCV02312 MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION MOVING PARTY : Plaintiff Jennifer Merrick RESPONDING PARTY : Defendant Sidhu Truck Line, Inc. SERVICE: Filed April 10, 2024 OPPOSITION: Filed June 25, 2024 REPLY: none RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to produce its person most qualified for deposition. BACKGROUND This is a personal injury case arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs filed this complaint on October 5, 2023. TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiffs motion to compel the deposition of Defendants person most qualified is DENIED. Plaintiffs request for sanctions is DENIED. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a), provides: If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponents attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 subdivision (b) requires that any motion under subdivision (a) set forth specific facts showing good cause and a meet and confer declaration or, when a deponent fails to attend the deposition, a declaration stating the moving party contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. DISCUSSION Plaintiff moves for an order compelling the deposition testimony of Defendants person most qualified. Plaintiff provides that on March 4, 2024, Plaintiffs served Defendant with a notice of deposition for its person most qualified. (Mesaros Decl. ¶ 2.) The deposition was noticed for April 5, 2024. ( Ibid .) The notice indicated only one topic of deposition: insurance. (Adzhemyan Decl., Exh. A.) Specifically, Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce a deponent to testify about any liability policies pertaining to accidents. ( Ibid .) On April 1, 2024, Defendant objected to Plaintiffs notice of deposition. (Adzhemyan Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. C.) The objections to the deposition notice specifically stated that Defendant would not appear because: 1) the deposition was unilaterally set; 2) it was burdensome and oppressive; 3) it impermissibly called for expert opinion; 4) it failed to comply the reasonable particularity requirement set forth in Civil Procedure Section 2025.230, causing Defendant to resort to speculation; and 5) it was vague, ambiguous and overbroad. ( Id ., Exh. C.) On April 5, 2024, Plaintiffs proceeded with the deposition anyways. Defendants representatives did not appear. ( Mesaros Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant opposes the motion based on insufficient meet and confer, and because Defendant has already produced the information that Plaintiff seeks. Defendants counsel attempted to reach Plaintiffs counsel on five different occasions but did not receive a response. (Adzhemyan Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.) Defendant has already provided its insurance information to Plaintiff in response to discovery requests (Adzhemyan Decl., ¶¶ 11-14, Exhs. F-I.) Plaintiff failed to meet and confer and set forth specific facts showing good cause. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs motion to compel the deposition of Defendants person most qualified is DENIED. Plaintiffs request for sanctions is DENIED. Moving Party to give notice. Dated: July 9, 2024 ___________________________________ Joel L. Lofton Judge of the Superior Court Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their intention to submit. alhdeptx@lacourt.org

Case Number: 23CHCV02983 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: F49 Dept. F49 Date: 7/9/24 Case Name: Maria Rincon v. Evangelina Rivera; and Does 1-50 Case No. 23CHCV02983 LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT DEPARTMENT F49 JULY 9, 2024 MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23CHCV02983 Motion filed: 4/12/24 MOVING PARTY: Defendant Evangelina Rivera (Rivera or Plaintiff) RESPONDING PARTY: None NOTICE: OK RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff Maria Rincons (Rincon or Plaintiff) responses to Defendants Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and imposing monetary sanctions, against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, in the amount of $561.65. TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. BACKGROUND This action arises from alleged personal injuries and property damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of an automotive collision that occurred on October 15, 2021. The Complaint alleges that Defendant ignored a solid red stop light, striking Plaintiff in a t-bone accident. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8.) On October 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant and Does 150, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Negligence, and (2) Motor Vehicle Negligence. Subsequently, on January 3, 2024, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint. On April 12, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the Motion). No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court. ANALYSIS If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses in not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a meet and confer requirement. ( Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 [internal citations omitted].) A. Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One Defendant counsel attests that on January 2, 2024, Defendant propounded the first set of Request for Production of Documents on Plaintiff, to which the responses were due on February 5, 2024. (Cadena Decl. ¶ 3.) However, no responses were received from Plaintiff by the due date. ( Id . ¶ 4.) Subsequently, on March 8, 2024, Defendants counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding the late discovery responses and requested Plaintiffs counsel to provides responses, without objection, by March 18, 2024. ( Id . ¶ 5.) Despite the effort, no responses were received by March 18, 2024, and no extensions were requested by Plaintiff. ( Id . ¶ 6.) Furthermore, Defendants counsel called and left a voicemail to Plaintiffs counsel on April 12, 2024. ( Id . ¶ 8.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. ( Id . ¶ 7.) Based on the records above, and given that no Opposition has been filed by Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve a timely response, thereby waiving any objection to the Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, including those based on privilege or the protection for work product, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a). Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. B. Request for Monetary Sanctions Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c) provides, in part, Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. As the Court has previously granted the Motion, it concludes that the mandatory monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c) are applicable here. Accordingly, in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorneys fees and costs incurred for the work in preparing the Motion is $561.65, calculated at a reasonable hourly rate of $250 for two hours reasonably spent plus $61.65 for filing fees. Therefore, Defendants Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. CONCLUSION Defendants Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to Defendants Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, without objection, within 20 days of this order. Defendants Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff and her attorney or record are ordered to pay $561.65, jointly and severally to Defendant within 20 days. Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 24PSCV00199 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Dept: 6 CASE NAME: Carlos Mendoza v. Alejandro Gomez Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents TENTATIVE RULING The Court DENIES Plaintiffs motions and further DENIES Plaintiffs requests for monetary sanctions. Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Courts ruling within five calendar days of this order. BACKGROUND This is a motor vehicle personal injury action. On January 19, 2024, plaintiff Carlos Mendoza (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Alejandro Gomez (Defendant) and Does 1-10, alleging a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence. On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Defendants further responses to Plaintiffs Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. On June 26, 2024, Defendant opposed the motions. On July 2, Plaintiff replied. LEGAL STANDARD Interrogatories Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) provides that on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d) further provides that [t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) Requests for Production of Documents Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(h) further provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) DISCUSSION Meet and Confer A motion to compel further responses requires the parties to meet and confer before bringing such a motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) Counsel for Plaintiff provided a declaration indicating Plaintiffs efforts to meet and confer. (Berjis Decl., ¶ 9.) Unable to resolve their disagreement, the parties proceeded to an Informal Discovery Conference on May 1, 2024. (Minute Order (5/1/24).) At the IDC, pursuant to the agreement of counsel, the Court ordered Defendant to serve supplemental responses by May 22, 2024. (Ibid.) The Court finds Plaintiffs meet-and-confer efforts satisfactory. Analysis Plaintiff propounded his first sets of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents on February 8, 2024. (Berjis Decl., ¶ 3.) Despite Defendants request for a three-week extension, Plaintiff granted Defendant a two-week extension to respond. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 5.) On March 28, 2024, the day that Defendants responses were due, Defendant requested another extension. (Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff refused because Defendant did not provide any explanation as to why another extension was needed. (Id., ¶ 7.) That same day, Defendant served responses to Plaintiffs Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. (Id., ¶ 8.) Defendant objected to every single request and interrogatory, except Form Interrogatory No. 1.1. (Ibid.) On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff moved to compel further responses. On June 26, 2024, Defendant filed oppositions. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs motions are now moot because Defendant served further responses on June 24, 2024. (Rabbani Decl., Exh. A, Proof of Service.) Plaintiffs counsel, in reply, stated that they never received the further responses. Instead, Defendants further responses were only made available because they were attached to Defendants oppositions. Plaintiff states that some of the responses that Defendant ultimately provided are sufficient, but others remain inadequate. Plaintiff maintains his request for an order compelling Defendants further responses to: Request for Production of Documents and Things Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 43; Special Interrogatories Nos. 5, 8, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, and 47; and Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.3(b), 2.4, 2.5(b) and (c), 2.6, 2.7(d), 7.1, 12.5, 12.6, 14.1, 20.2(a), (c), (e), (f) and (g), 20.5, 20.8(a), (b) and (c), and 20.9. A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See, e.g., CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).) Plaintiff has not identified why further responses should be required of Defendant. In his moving papers, Plaintiff merely stated in a conclusory manner that the documents sought will not only help evaluate Plaintiffs case, but it is most certainly necessary in facilitating a settlement in this matter. (RPD Motion, 8:3-4.) In reply, the only reason Plaintiff provided for granting the motions is that Defendants responses are not in substantial compliance. (RPD Reply, 4:12.) This falls short of the specific facts standard. Further, there is no separate statement identifying the particular responses and reasons for compelling further responses. Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiffs motions. The Court further DENIES Plaintiffs requests for monetary sanctions. Based on the declarations of Elham R. Rabbani, the Court finds that given the circumstances regarding the unavailability of attorneys, and given the early stage of this case and the lack of cooperation in granting the requested extensions, that the imposition of monetary sanctions would be unjust. CONCLUSION The Court DENIES Plaintiffs motions and further DENIES Plaintiffs requests for monetary sanctions. Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Courts ruling within five calendar days of this order.

Case Number: 20STCV33737 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: T Motion to Change Venue Moving Party: Plaintiff Mariana Accosta Responding Party: Defendant Hector Galbusera Tentative Ruling: Denied. BACKGROUND On September 03, 2020, Plaintiff Mariana Acosta (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint alleging motor vehicle action against Defendant Hector Eduardo Galbusera (Defendant) and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive. Defendant filed his Answer to the Complaint on October 20, 2020. On May 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Transfer. Defendant filed his opposition to the motion on June 13, 2024. Plaintiff has filed a reply. DISCUSSION Applicable Law Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made. [Citations.] [Citation.] (Dow AgroSciences, LLC v. Superior Court (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1076.)¿¿ [I]f an action or proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof, other than the court designated as the proper court for the trial thereof, under this title, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried in the court where commenced& (Code Civ. Proc., § 396b(a).) The burden is on the moving party to establish facts justifying the transfer. (Mission Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 928.) Absent an affirmative showing to the contrary, the presumption is that the county in which the title of the action shows that it is brought is, prima facie, the proper county for the commencement and trial of the action. (Id.; Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836.) Analysis The Complaint alleges a negligence cause of action against the Defendant for a motor = vehicle accident that occurred on the ramp of SR-60 E/B to the I-710 N/B, Los Angeles, CA 90022. (Compl.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant fell asleep while driving, causing the crash with Plaintiff, and was cited for violating California Vehicle Code section 22350 - Unsafe Speed by the California Highway Patrol. (Id. p. 5.) Plaintiff seeks to transfer the action to a trial department in Downtown Los Angeles. (Mot. p. 2) Plaintiff argues that the lawsuit has no connection to Alhambra since the subject incident occurred downtown, neither party lives in Alhambra, and all witnesses, including first responders and Plaintiffs medical provider, live in/near or work in/near downtown Los Angeles. Plaintiff asserts that the venue is proper in the central district because the case was initially filed there and had remained there for nearly four years before being transferred to this Court. In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to provide any statutory authority to support the motion. The Court disagrees. First, Defendant mistakes the motion for a motion for forum non-convenes. That is not the case as Plaintiff rests the motion under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 395(a), 397(c). However, Plaintiff has not carried her burden in showing that a change in venue back to downtown is justifiable. Here, the standard is not so much about focusing on convenience but rather on the inconvenience of the venue for the action. The plaintiffs contention that witnesses are in or around downtown is simply not enough to carry her burden under the statute. While one courthouse may be more convenient to some witnesses, the level of inconvenience is not substantial and a transfer is not necessary to further the interests of justice. Further, Plaintiff argues that she would be prejudiced by a trial continuance. Because the matter is set for trial on October 14 in Department T and it is extremely unlikely that the case would be set any earlier in a downtown courthouse, denial of this motion protects Plaintiff from the perceived prejudice resulting from a trial continuance. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Motion to Change Venue is DENIED.

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 10, 2024 line 2. DEFENDANT MAXIMUS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS LTD, PARKMERCED OWNER, LLC (ERRONEOUSLY SUED HEREIN AS MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT is DENIED. First Amended Complaint states sufficient facts to support punitive damages. =(501/HEK) 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.