Synergy Anesthesia V. Samantha Ororke

Case Number: 19NWCV00849 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: C FC Marketplace, LLC vs HKS Food Inc., et al Case No.: 19NWCV00849 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m. #1 Tentative Ruling Plaintiff FC Marketplaces unopposed motion to enforce settlement and for entry of judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff to give notice. Background This lawsuit involves a loan made by Plaintiff FC Marketplace, LLC (Plaintiff) to Defendants HKS Food Inc. (HKS) and David Park as Guarantor (Park) (collectively Defendants). The operative Complaint, filed on November 6, 2019, brings causes of action for: (1) Open Book Account; (2) Account Stated; (3) Reasonable Value of Goods/Services Received/Funds Provided; (4) Agreement; (5) Promissory Note; (6) Personal Guarantee; and (7) Unjust Enrichment. On January 14, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulated judgment which provides in relevant part: · A one-time payment of $30,000.00 on February 10, 2022 · Monthly payments of $1,445.62 from March 10, 2022 to January 10, 2027. · If any payment is not made timely, this stipulation will be treated as being in default. Upon default, Plaintiff shall give written notice of the default by email to Frederick Lee, esq. Defendant has ten (10) days from the date written notice was given to cure any said default. If the default is not cured after 10 days, Plaintiff is entitled to enter judgment in the amount of $147,983.57 minus any payments made by the Defendant, and may thereafter enforce said judgment for the full balance due. · The Court will retain jurisdiction of the action until the judgment is fully complied with or until further order of the Court. Plaintiff moves to enforce settlement pursuant to CCP § 664.6 based upon Defendants failure to make payments under the agreement. As of July 12, 2024, the motion is unopposed. Legal Standard If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) In hearing a section 664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment. ( Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.) The court may interpret the terms and conditions to settlement ( Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon ( Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810.) Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. ( Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) The party seeking to enforce a settlement must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth in a writing signed by the parties (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.] ( Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304 [holding that a letter confirming the essential terms of a settlement agreement was not a writing signed by the parties sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 664.6].) Discussion Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to comply with specific provisions of the settlement agreement that require them to make monthly payments of $1,445.62. Plaintiff contends that Defendants failed to make the September 10, 2022 payment. They also failed to pay within 10 days of receiving notice of late payment. The Court finds that Defendants have breached the terms of the Stipulated Judgment by failing to make the requisite monthly payments. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to enforce settlement pursuant to C.C.P § 664.6 is GRANTED. Judgment is to be entered against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $147,983.57, less any payments made by Defendants.

C23-02463 CASE NAME: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS. KIM COBBS COURT TRIAL HEARING FILED BY: *TENTATIVE RULING:* Parties to appear and be ready for court trial. A failure to appear may result in the imposition of sanctions.

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Tuesday, july 16, 2024, Line 3. PLAINTIFF UNIFUND CCR, LLC's Motion For Entering Judgment Pursuant To Defendant'S Default Under Settlement And Release Agreement. Granted as unopposed. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/CK)

MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING CVSW2400642 CAPITAL ONE, N.A. VS RICE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED BY CAPITAL ONE, N.A. Tentative Ruling: Motion is unopposed. Motion is GRANTED. Requests for Admission propounded on March 26, 2024 are deemed admitted. Court to sign proposed order.

Case Number: 23TRCV03914 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: P Application for Writ of Possession The court considered the moving papers. No opposition has been received. RULING The application for writ of possession is GRANTED. BACKGROUND On November 27, 2023, plaintiff Ally Bank (Ally) filed a complaint against defendant Charhonda L. Bridges aka Charhonda Bridges (Bridges). The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) claim and delivery of personal property; and (2) money due on a contract. The complaint alleges that Ally became the owner of a written contract through written assignment in which Bridges purchased from Plaintiffs assignor a 2018 Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class, and said contract is in defect based on Bridges failure to make payment due and owing on April 11, 2023. On January 18, 2024, Ally filed the instant application for writ of possession relating the subject vehicle. On June 12, 2024, Ally filed proof of substitute service of the summons, complaint and instant application for writ of possession. LEGAL STANDARD Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply pursuant to this chapter for a writ of possession by filing a written application for the writ with the court in which the action is brought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.010(a).) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 512.010(b), the application must be submitted under oath and include: (1) A showing of the basis of the plaintiff's claim and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property claimed. If the basis of the plaintiff's claim is a written instrument, a copy of the instrument shall be attached. (2) A showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, of the manner in which the defendant came into possession of the property, and, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the reason for the detention. (3) A particular description of the property and a statement of its value. (4) A statement, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the location of the property and, if the property, or some part of it, is within a private place which may have to be entered to take possession, a showing that there is probable cause to believe that such property is located there. (5) A statement that the property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, pursuant to a statute; or seized under an execution against the property of the plaintiff; or, if so seized, that it is by statute exempt from such seizure. Before the hearing on the Writ of Possession, the defendant must be served with (1) a copy of the summons and complaint; (2) a Notice of Application and Hearing; and (3) a copy of the application and any affidavit in support thereof. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.030.) The writ will be issued if the court finds that the plaintiff's claim is probably valid and the other requirements for issuing the writ are established. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.040(b).) A claim has probable validity where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on that claim. (Code Civ. Proc. § 511.090.) DISCUSSION A. Procedural Requirements Allys proof of service, filed on June 12, 2024, indicate that Bridges was served with the requisite documents by substitute service on June 2, 2024. The proofs of service refer to service of the summons, complaint, notice of application and hearing, application for writ of possession, and other related documents. It is noted that Bridges has not filed an opposition to the instant application. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Ally has complied with the service requirement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.030.) Additionally, upon review of the application, the Court finds that Ally has complied with the procedural requirements under Code of Civil Procedure § 512.010(b). B. Basis of Plaintiffs Claim The instant application and complaint are apparently based on cause of action for claim and delivery. (See Applications; Memoranda at pg. 2.) In order to be entitled to a writ of possession, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they are entitled to possess the subject property. (Code Civ. Proc. §512.010(b)(1).) Where an application is based on a cause of action claim and deliver, the Plaintiff here must establish: (1) a right to immediate possession of the Vehicle; and (2) the wrongful detention of the Vehicle by the defendants. (Law v. Heiniger (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d Supp. 898, 899; Home Payment Jewelry Co. v. Smith (1914) 24 Cal.App. 486, 488.) In order to meet this burden, it is improper for a plaintiff to rely solely on a verified complaint. (See 6 Witkin, California Procedure, (5th ed. 2008) §255, pg. 203.) The application may be supported by declarations and/or a verified complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 516.030.) The declarations or complaint must set forth admissible evidence except where expressly permitted to be shown on information and belief. (Id.) Here, Ally solely relies upon the Declaration of James Singleton, who is the authorized representative for Ally and oversees Bridges account with respect to the subject vehicle. (App., Singleton Decl. ¶ 1.) Mr. Singleton attests that Ally has right to immediate possession of the subject vehicle for the following reasons. First, Ally is the assignee of sales contract, and the contract states that the right to immediate possession of the subject vehicle is permitted upon a default of any provision within the contract. (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Second, Ally is listed as a lienholder with first priority on the subject vehicles title. (Id., Ehx. B.) Also, Mr. Singleton attests that Bridges has wrongfully detained the subject vehicle for her failure to make necessary payments that were due and owing on April 11, 2023 in the amount of $1,327.03, and Bridges continues to be in breach of the contract for her failure to make payments. (Id. ¶ 6.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Ally has satisfied its evidentiary burden to warrant the requested relief. Based on the foregoing, the application for writ of possession is GRANTED. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: 23PSCV01387 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: G Plaintiff Wex Inc.s Application for Default Judgment Respondent: NO OPPOSITION TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Wex Inc.s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $285,786.65. BACKGROUND This is a collections action. From May 2022 to July 2022, Plaintiff Wex Inc. (Wex) alleges Defendant Little Fat Trucking became indebted to Wex for a fuel card account in the total amount of $237,576.05. On May 8, 2023, Wex filed a complaint against Little Fat Trucking and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) open book account and (2) account stated. On May 9, 2024, Wexs process server served Little Fat Trucking through the California Secretary of State. On June 20, 2024, the Court entered default against Little Fat Trucking after they failed to timely file an answer. On the same day, Wex submitted the present application for default judgment. A case management conference is set for July 16, 2024. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has filed to timely respond or appear. A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1800.) ANALYSIS Wex seeks default judgment against Little Fat Trucking in the total amount of $340,918.37, including $237,576.05 in damages, $102,386.57 in interest, and $955.75 in costs. Because the Court finds Wex submitted sufficient evidence, the court GRANTS their application for default judgment with the following modification: While Wex requests $102,386.57 in interest, the Court finds this amount was calculated incorrectly and deems the correct amount of awardable interest to be $47,254.85 (10% of $237,576.05 divided by 365 = $65.0893287671 per diem multiplied by 726 days (07/21/2022 07/16/2024). Accordingly, the total judgment is reduced to $285,786.65. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Wexs application for default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $285,786.65 (Damages of $237,576.05 + Interest of $47,254.85 + Costs of 955.75).

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VS. CASTRO Case Number: 23CVG-00362 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. moves for terminating sanctions by striking Defendant Vincent Castro’s answer. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $1,572.75 for each motion. Procedural Defect: As a procedural matter, this motion was served both via mail and email on May 9, 2024, and set for a hearing date of June 7, 2024. CCP § 1005(b) requires all moving papers be served 16 court days before the hearing. This notice period is extended by five calendar days if the motion is served by mail. Id. For service by email, the notice period is extended by two court days. CCP § 1010.6(a)(3). This timeframe is calculated by counting backwards from the hearing date but excluding the hearing date. CCP § 12c. Starting with the June 7, 2024, hearing date and counting backwards 16 court days (excluding the Court holiday of May 27, 2024) then five calendar days for out of state mailing this matter should have been served by mail no later than, May 4, 2024. For email the last day to serve the motion was April 24, 2024. The motion was served on May 7, 2024, and was untimely under either calculation. Based on insufficient statutory notice, the motion is denied. Merits of Motion: Even if the motion had been timely noticed, terminating sanctions are not warranted. Terminating sanctions are a “drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604. A terminating sanction should not generally be imposed by the court until less severe sanctions have been attempted and were unsuccessful. Id. No justification has been provided as to why terminating sanctions are appropriate in this context instead of lesser evidentiary or issue sanctions. Without additional evidence, terminating sanctions would be premature. The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the denial. Review Hearing: This matter is also on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The Court designates this matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than October 15, 2024. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to discuss available trial dates.

TRUIST BANK VS. STOCK, ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0203124 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued on May 28, 2024 to Plaintiff Truist Bank and counsel, Gurstel Law Firm, P.C., for failure to timely serve pleadings on Defendant Chris Stock pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b) and Local Rule of Court 3.03 and failure to timely seek default on Defendant Bright Nichols Stock pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(g). “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” CRC 3.110(b). Local Rule 3.03 mandates that Plaintiff serve Defendant with Local Form LF-CIV-100 and file a proof of service within the same timeframe. The Complaint in this matter was filed on September 1, 2023 and no proof of service has been filed for defendant Chris Stock. Plaintiff did not address defendant Chris Stock in the written response to the Order to Show Cause. CRC 3.110(g) requires Plaintiff to file a request for entry of default within 10 days after the time for service of the responsive pleading has elapsed. Defendant Bright Nichols Stock was served on October 7, 2023. The time for filing a responsive pleading expired November 6, 2023. No extension was requested or granted. No default was requested. On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Declaration that asserts that a default packet “is pending to be drafted.” No explanation is given for the noncompliance with CRC 3.110. No default judgment has been requested. With no sufficient excuse for the delay, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order of Sanctions. The Court will issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal pursuant to Gov’t Code Section 68608(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the complaint and LF-CIV-100, failure to timely seek default judgment, and failure to timely prosecute. The hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is set for Monday, September 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 63. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. This matter is also calendared on Monday, September 9, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for review regarding status of service. ****************************************************************************************** 9:00 a.m. – Review Hearings ******************************************************************************************