Abraham Palmero V. Nicholas Ramirez

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

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 5. PLAINTIFF YINGNAN LI's MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 1ST Amended COMPLAINT. Off calendar. Notice of settlement of entire case filed June 18, 2024. =(302/RBU)

Case Number: 22STCV18342 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Dept: 28 Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff Christian Castillo (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Does 1-25 for negligence (motor vehiclepersonal injuries and property damage). On May 20, 2024, Plaintiffs counsel Glotzer & Leib, LLP filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, to be heard on July 10, 2024. No trial date is currently scheduled. COUNSELS REQUEST Plaintiffs counsel Glotzer & Leib, LLP , asks to be relieved as counsel. LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, provides: (a) Notice A notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051). (b) Memorandum Notwithstanding any other rule of court, no memorandum is required to be filed or served with a motion to be relieved as counsel. (c) Declaration 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). The declaration must state 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). (d) Service The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice may be by personal service, electronic service, or mail. (1) If the notice is served on the client by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either: (A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or (B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. (2) If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address. As used in this rule, current means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current. If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) applies. (e) Order The proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers. The order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. If no hearing date is presently scheduled, the court may set one and specify the date in the order. After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) DISCUSSION Counsel has completed, filed, and served the paperwork required to support the request to be relieved as counsel. The Court grants the motion. CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS Glotzer & Leib, LLPs motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Christian Castillo. Counsel will be relieved upon filing proof of service on Plaintiff Christian Castillo of the Order Granting Attorneys Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (Judicial Council form MC-053). Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Counsel is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

Case Number: 22STCV28389 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: 55 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS : Motion Of Defendant Southern California Conference Of Seventh-Day Adventists For Order Compelling Plaintiff John Doe To Comply With Demand For Physical Examination, And Imposing Monetary Sanctions. Motion Thereof For Mental Examination (C.C.P. §§2032.310-2032.320). The Court had continued these matters from 4/25/24 after instructing the parties to meet and confer on the issues raised in the motion and, if necessary, holding an IDC with the Court. The Court requests an update on any progress made towards resolving the motions.

Case Number: 23STCV10500 Hearing Date: July 9, 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 9, 2024 CASE NUMBER : 23STCV10500 MOTIONS : Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint MOVING PARTY: Cross-Complainant Burrell Builders, Inc. OPPOSING PARTY: None BACKGROUND This case stems from an alleged construction site injury. On May 10, 2023, Plaintiff Arcel D. Escalante filed a complaint against Defendants Burrell Construction, Inc., Foundational Builders Corporation, BA Crete Corp., Lanai Properties, and Does 1 to 20. On November 8, 2023 Cross-Complainant Burrell Builders, Inc. (Burrell) filed a cross-complaint against Foundational Builders Corporation and Moes 1 to 20 for equitable indemnity and apportionment, and declaratory relief. On December 12, 2023, Foundational Builders Corporation (Foundational Builders) filed an answer to the cross-complaint. Burrell now moves for leave to amend its cross complaint to include causes of action for breach of contract and express indemnity. No opposition has been filed. LEGAL STANDARD Under Code of Civil Procedure section 576, [a]ny judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order. A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith.¿ This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.¿ ( Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) (Emphasis added.)¿ ¿ The Court of Appeals has explained: The legislative mandate is clear. A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial¿court. A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith. ( Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank¿ (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 9899.) Bad faith, is defined as [t]he opposite of good faith, generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake . . ., but by some interested or sinister motive[,] . . . not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather . . . the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; . . . it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will. ( Id . at 100.) ¿ California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: [t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.¿ The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.¿ This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.¿( Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court ¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. ( See ¿ California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿ (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281¿[overruled on other grounds by¿ Kransco¿v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. ¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390].)¿ California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324: Procedural Requirements Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleadings, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. In addition, under Rule 3.1324(b), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies the following: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. DISCUSSION As an initial matter, the procedural requirements have not been met since the declaration in support of this motion does not state when the subcontract was discovered or why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion also does not identify by page, paragraph, or line number, where the proposed additions are found. Nevertheless, Burrell has provided a copy of the proposed amended cross-complaint. (Stroup Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Burrell was the general contractor for the construction site, and it subcontracted with Foundational Builders, which employed Plaintiff. Burrell argues that the proposed causes of action are based on an agreement between it and Foundational Builders, related to the subcontract. No opposition has been filed for this motion. Therefore, because there is no opposition, and applying the liberal policy in favor of amendments, the motion for leave is granted. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Cross-Complainant Burrell Builders, Inc.s motion for leave to file an amended cross-complaint is GRANTED. Burrell shall file and serve its first amended cross-complaint within 10 days. Burrell shall provide notice of the Courts order and shall file a proof of service of such.

Case Number: 21STCV37420 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: B SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT FARIBA NOURIAN, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO: 21STCV37420 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Dept. B 1:30 p.m. July 9, 2024 I. BACKGROUND On October 8, 2021, Plaintiff Fariba Nourian filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, The Gary Michael Glushon and Kristan Ann Glushon Family Trust (the Trust), Gary Michael Glushon, Kristin Ann Glushon, and Gary Michael Glushon and Kristan Ann Glushon as Trustees of the Gary Michael Glushon and Kristin Ann Glushon Family Trust, alleging causes of action for negligence and premises liability, arising out of an alleged trip and fall on an uneven and/or raised and/or deteriorating sidewalk. On May 3, 2024, Defendant the Trust filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings. No opposition has been filed. II. LEGAL STANDARD A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint or the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438 subd. (c)(1)(B).) A non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made any time before or during trial. ( Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.) Such motion may be made on the same ground as those supporting a general demurrer, i.e ., that the pleading at issue fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim or defense. ( Ibid. ) In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452; see also Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) When a court evaluates a complaint, the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable inferences from the facts pled. ( Duval v. Board of Tr. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 902, 906.) In deciding or reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, all properly pleaded material facts are deemed to be true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. ( Fire Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.) The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the challenged complaint or be based on facts which the court may judicially notice. (§ 438(d); Tiffany v. Sierra Sands Unified School Dist. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 218, 225.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings normally does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action. ( Ibid. ) In the case of either a demurrer or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, leave to amend should be granted if there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action. ( Gami v. Mullikin Medical Ctr. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 870, 876.) III. DISCUSSION Defendant the Trust argues that the complaint does not state sufficient facts against Defendant as it is not a legal entity and cannot be sued. A trust estate is not a legal entity; it is simply a collection of assets and liabilities. As such, it has no capacity to sue, be sued or defend an action. Any litigation must be maintained by, or against, the executor, administrator or trustee of the estate. ( Galdjie v. Darwish (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1344.) Here, the complaint names The Gary Michael Glushon and Kristan Ann Glushon Family Trust as a defendant. However, a trust is not a proper defendant. Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend. The complaint against the Trust is DISMISSED. Defendant is ORDERED to give notice. DATED: July 9, 2024 _____________________ Karen Moskowitz Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 21STCV21202 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Dept: T Motion: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Moving Party: Plaintiffs Counsel, Shaun J. Bauman, Esq. Responding Party: None Tentative Ruling: Grant On June 7, 2021, Plaintiff Aaron Birt filed a Complaint against Defendant John W. Ennis for an action arising out of a motor vehicle collision resulting in personal injury and property damage. On June 11, 2024, Plaintiffs Counsel, Shaun J. Bauman filed the instant motion to be Relieved as Counsel (MC-051), along with a supporting Declaration (MC-052), and Proposed Order (MC-053). There is no opposition on file. The Court may issue an order allowing an attorney to withdraw from representation, after notice to the client. (CCP § 284.) The attorney may withdraw from representation as long as the withdrawal would not result in undue prejudice to the clients interesti.e., counsel cannot withdraw at a critical point in the litigation. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915; see California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700.) Attorney Shaun J. Bauman, counsel of record for Plaintiff Aaron Birt, seeks to withdraw from representation of Plaintiff. Counsel states that there has been irreconcilable differences between this office and the Plaintiffs. (MC-052.) Counsel further states that such irreconcilable differences have given rise to a significant breakdown in the communication and direction of the case, rendering it impossible for Counsel to continue to represent Plaintiff. (MC-052.) Trial has not been set and thus no prejudice will result from Counsels withdrawal. Based on the foregoing, Counsel has complied with CRC 3.1362 and the Court finds there is good cause for Counsels withdrawal. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

23CV00719 AMADEI v. MORGAN (UNOPPOSED) MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff seeks an order deeming the truth of all matters specified in his requests for admissions, set one, propounded on defendant Morgan. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,145.00. I. Legal Authority Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), if a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission, the requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matter specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c) requires the court to make this order “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” II. Discussion Page 2 of 3 Pursuant to the Discovery Act, the court shall order the requests for admission as admitted unless code-compliant responses are served before the hearing. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Plaintiff served requests for admissions, set one on April 5, 2024, via electronic service, on defendant. (Ex. 2 to Dec. of U. Singh.) Defendant failed to respond to the requests and has not communicated with plaintiff’s counsel regarding the requests. (Dec. of U. Singh at ¶ 8.) The court deems admitted all matters specified in requests for admissions, set one, attached to the Declaration of Mr. Singh as Ex. 2. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (b).) This will be the order of the court unless defendant serves, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admissions that is in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. The court imposes monetary sanctions against defendant Morgan in the amount of $1,195.00, payable no later than July 31, 2024. 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.