Franklin T. Campbell V. John Burton Hand Jr

No appearances necessary. Defendant was just served with the summons and complaint on July 6, 2024 and the time for filing a responsive pleading has not yet expired. The matter is continued for further case management to November 6, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 3. Updated CMC Statements must be filed and served at least 15 days prior to the CMC.

23CV02465 Thao, Thai v. Callaway, Michael et al EVENT: Defendant City of Chico’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint Defendant City of Chico’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AND SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION. Plaintiffs shall amend, if they so choose, within 20 days of this order. Preliminarily, Plaintiff’s argument that the stipulation precludes the instant demurrer, the argument is without a factual basis. Nowhere does it state Defendants are waiving their ability to file a demurrer or any other motion attacking the pleading as authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure. As to the first cause of action, the Court disagrees that the legal theories cited in the first cause of action are duplicative. Even if they were, a demurrer is not the appropriate procedural mechanism to address redundant matter. If there are sufficient facts pled or that can be inferred reasonably to state a cause of action under any theory, the demurrer must be overruled. (Lin v. Coronado, (2014) 232 Cal. App. 4th 696) [Emphasis Added] 2|Page Regarding the second cause of action, the Court preliminarily notes that based on the argument presented, Gov. Code § 911 is inapplicable. According to Defendants’ contention, the loss of consortium claim was never presented in the first instance. If that’s true, Gov. Code § 911 wouldn’t apply. It is only a claim as presented that fails to comply substantially that triggers sections 910.8, 911 and 911.3. (Phillips v. Desert Hospital Dist., (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 699, 707) [Emphasis Added] The second cause of action for loss of consortium does not allege compliance with the claim presentation procedures. The filing of a claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of any cause of action against the public entity and is therefore an element that a plaintiff is required to prove in order to prevail. (DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara, (2012) 55 Cal. 4th 983, 990) [Emphasis Added] Because the claim presentation requirement is an element, Plaintiffs must plead that they presented a claim which included a loss of consortium demand. Defendant shall prepare and submit a form of order consistent with this ruling within 2 weeks.

C24-00396 CASE NAME: DAVID WHITE VS. JOHN MANOOGIAN *HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: TO FILE UNDER SEAL DOCUMENTS ISO DAVID WHITE'S COMPLAINT FILED BY: WHITE, DAVID *TENTATIVE RULING:* Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to file under seal Exhibit A to the Complaint is granted for the reasons stated in the motion.

22CV016505: WARD, et al. vs GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. 07/30/2024 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by JOHNSON & JOHNSON (Defendant) + in Department 18 Tentative Ruling - 07/25/2024 Patrick McKinney The Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOHNSON & JOHNSON, LTL Management LLC on 06/05/2024 is Granted. Defendants Johnson & Johnson’s and LTL Management’s (“J&J Defendants”) unopposed Motion for Summary Adjudication (“MSA”) of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint’s Tenth Cause of Action for Fraud, which alleges a number of different fraud-based causes of action, is GRANTED in its entirety. CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.

Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Wednesday, Jul-24-2024, Line 1, 2-PLAINTIFFS WINNY BAMBICO, and JAMESON BAMBICO's Motion To Compel Defendant Sonic.Net, Llc. To Provide Verifications To Request For Admissions, Set One; And Request For Sanctions. Continued to August 21, 2024 on the court's motion. (D302)

Case Number: 23STCV20959 Hearing Date: July 29, 2024 Dept: 53 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Central District Department 53 mugihiko morijiri , et al.; Plaintiffs , vs. 24 cmn llc , et al.; Defendants . Case No.: 23STCV20959 Hearing Date: July 29, 2024 Time: 10:00 a.m. [tentative] Order RE: defendants motion to strike portions of complaint MOVING PARTIES: Defendants 24 CMN, LLC and CYN, LLC RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Mugihiko Morijiri, Keiko Morijiri, and Zion Morijiri and Ewan Morijiri, by and through their guardian ad litem, Keiko Morijiri Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion. DISCUSSION Defendants 24 CMN, LLC and CYN, LLC (Defendants) move the court for an order striking the prayer for punitive damages (Compl., Prayer, p. 23:20) and related allegations (Compl., ¶¶ 117, 161, 172 [1] ) in the Complaint filed by plaintiffs Mugihiko Morijiri, Keiko Morijiri, and Zion Morijiri and Ewan Morijiri, by and through their guardian ad litem, Keiko Morijiri (Plaintiffs). The court grants Defendants motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages and related allegations because Plaintiffs have not alleged facts establishing (1) Defendants are guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, and (2) advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification, or act of oppression, fraud, or malice on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436; Civ. Code, § 3294, subds. (a), (b).) The court finds that the allegations that Ariana Javaheri, the property supervisor and managing agent of Defendants, informed Plaintiffs that the dark staining on their wall was not mold but mildew and advised Plaintiffs that they would have to pay for the mold test if the results were negative (Compl., ¶¶ 21-23) do not show that Defendants (1) engaged in conduct intended to cause injury to Plaintiffs or despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of Plaintiffs, or (2) engaged in despicable conduct subjecting Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subds. (c)(1) [defining malice], (c)(2) [defining oppression].) Moreover, while the court acknowledges that Plaintiffs have also alleged that plaintiff Ewan Morijiri was diagnosed with leukemia, is immunocompromised, and was advised not to reside in a premises with mold because it would be injurious and possibly fatal (Compl., ¶ 23), Plaintiffs did not allege facts establishing that Defendants knew of this risk, such that Ariana Javaheris conduct may be considered malicious or oppressive. ORDER The court grants defendants CMN, LLC and CYN, LLCs motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages and paragraphs 117, 161, and 172 of plaintiffs Mugihiko Morijiri, Keiko Morijiri, and Zion Morijiri and Ewan Morijiri, by and through their guardian ad litem, Keiko Morijiris Complaint in this action. The court grants plaintiffs Mugihiko Morijiri, Keiko Morijiri, and Zion Morijiri and Ewan Morijiri, by and through their guardian ad litem, Keiko Morijiri 20 days leave to file a First Amended Complaint that cures the defects set forth in this ruling. The court orders defendants CMN, LLC and CYN, LLC to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 29, 2024 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court [1] The court notes that the notice of motion erroneously states this allegation is in paragraph 171. (Notice of Mot., p. 2, ¶ 3.)

NILSSON vs THE PEOPLE Demurrer on Complaint for Racketeer CVRI2306486 OF THE STATE OF Influenced & Corrupt Organization Act CALIFORNIA (Over $25,000) of ANDREW NILSSON Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling.

Case Number: 22STCV28983 Hearing Date: July 26, 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 26, 2024 CASE NUMBER : 22STCV28983 MOTIONS : Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff KAREN HARUTYUNYAN OPPOSING PARTY: None BACKGROUND On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff Karen Harutyunyan (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants IKEA US Inc. and IKEA North America Services LLC. On May 9, 2024, the matter was set for an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Failure to Request Entry of Default and Sanctions for Failure to Appear. No appearance was made and the case was dismissed. On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to set aside the dismissal. LEGAL STANDARD Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), the Court may relieve a party from a dismissal taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. This application must be filed no more than six months after entry of the order from which relief is sought, and must contain an affidavit of fault demonstrating the moving partys mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. A mistake is a basis for relief under section 473 when by reason of the mistake a party failed to make a timely response. Surprise occurs when a party is unexpectedly placed in a position to his injury without any negligence of his own. Excusable neglect is a basis for relief when the party has shown some reasonable excuse for the default. ( Credit Managers Association of California v. National Independent Business Alliance (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1166, 1173 ; Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 905.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating an excusable ground, such as fraud or mistake, justifying a courts vacating a judgment. ( Basinger v. Roger & Wells (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 16, 2324.) Relief under this section is mandatory when based on an attorney affidavit of fault; otherwise, it is discretionary. ( Id. ) Mandatory relief is only available when a party fails to oppose a dismissal motion (which are procedurally equivalent to a default). ( Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 620.) With an attorney affidavit of fault, there is no requirement that the attorneys mistake or inadvertence be excusable. ( Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 770.) The affidavit also does not need to contain a reason for the mistake. ( Martin Potts & Associates, Inc. v. Corsair, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 432, 438.) Additionally, since an attorney is responsible for supervising the work of legal assistants, an error by an employee is considered the attorneys error for purposes of section 473(b) relief. ( Hu v. Fang (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 61, 64 [paralegals error in calendaring an OSC hearing was attributable to the attorney and subject to mandatory relief].) DISCUSSION Procedurally, the present motion is timely because it was filed within six months after the dismissal. Counsel for plaintiff asserts that the April 4, 2024 Order to Show Cause hearing was miscalendared and counsel therefore failed to appear. (Dec. ¶ 3.) Counsel further declares that at that hearing, the Court continued the order to show cause hearing to May 9, 2024, but counsel did not receive notice of the continuance. The Court notes that a certificate of mailing shows that notice of the May 9, 2024 hearing was sent to Plaintiffs counsel. However, in light of counsels declaration under penalty of perjury that counsel did not receive notice of the continued hearing, the Court grants the motion. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to set aside dismissal. The matter is set for an Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal for Failure to Request Entry of Default for September 23, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Plaintiff to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.