Bush Vs Ace Parking Inc

CV-23-005771 - GALVAN, FRANCISCO ESCALANTE vs SCHROEDER, ARCELIA B – a) Defendant Kem-Hable, Inc's Motion for Order Compelling Responses, Without Objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $820.00 Against Plaintiff and/or His Counsel- GRANTED; b) Defendant Kemp- Hable, Inc.'s Motion for Order Compelling Responses, Without Objections, to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $820.00 Against Plaintiff and/or His Counsel - GRANTED; c) Defendant Kemp-Hable, Inc's Motion for Order Compelling Responses, Without Objections, to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Requests for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount Of $820.00 Against Plaintiff and/or His Counsel – GRANTED. (a) The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to respond to the subject discovery in a timely fashion and all objections are waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objection, within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1348(a).) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $345 are awarded against Plaintiff and his counsel, Raymond Ghermezian, payable to defense counsel. (b) The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to respond to the subject discovery in a timely fashion and all objections are waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objection, within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1348(a).) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $345 are awarded against Plaintiff and his counsel, Raymond Ghermezian, payable to defense counsel. (c)The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to respond to the subject discovery in a timely fashion and all objections are waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objection, within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1348(a).) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $345 are awarded against Plaintiff and his counsel, Raymond Ghermezian, payable to defense counsel.

Case Number: 23VECV01049 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: T Alvarez v McGuire 23VECV01049 Tentative ruling: Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Adjudication of Issues The plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied. If a plaintiff moves for summary judgment, he must establish by admissible facts that there are no triable issues to be tried to the jury. Here, plaintiff would have to show that there is no triable issue of fact on the First Amended Complaint which includes causes of action for Conversion, Assault, Violation of Civil Code section 51.7, Violation of Civil Code section 52.1, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligence. The motion is denied because plaintiffs have failed to establish that there is no triable issue as to the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiffs. A plaintiff can win a case on summary judgment. Section 437c makes summary judgment available when it is shown that an action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action. So, a plaintiff who could show that the defendant had no defense to the claim would be entitled to summary judgment. But this would mean proving every element of the plaintiffs case including the amount of damages and defeating all the defendants affirmative defenses as a matter of law. Plaintiffs have failed to meet this standard for summary judgment. The motion for summary adjudication is also denied. Summary adjudication motions allow a court to adjudicate a limited set of issues specified in Californias summary judgment statute, section 437c, subdivision of the Code of Civil Procedure. Summary adjudication is authorized to adjudicate one or more causes of action within the action; one or more affirmative defenses within the action; that there is no valid claim for punitive damages; or that the defendant did, or did not, owe the plaintiff a duty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd.(f)(1).) Thats it. Moreover, A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for [punitive] damages, or an issue of duty. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (f)(1), emphasis added.) What this means is that a plaintiff cannot generally obtain summary adjudication on the issue of the defendants liability, while having the amount of damages determined by a jury. (See Paramount Petroleum Corporation v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 238.) California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(b) requires that if summary adjudication is sought, whether separately or as an alternative to the motion for summary judgment, the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts. The Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of a motion must separately identify: (A) Each cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion; and (B) Each supporting material fact claimed to be without dispute with respect to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion. Plaintiffs separate statement fails to comply with CRC 3.1350(b) for summary adjudication. There is no specific "cause of action, or claim of damages, or issue of duty, of affirmative defense which is the subject of the motion stated verbatim in the separate statement. Because the motion for summary judgment fails to show, as a matter of law, that there are no triable issues of fact, and because the separate statement fails to meet the requirements of CRC 3.1350(b) for motions for summary adjudication, the motion is denied in its entirety. Clerk to give notice.

COSSUTO VS. ESTATE OF MICHAEL GARRETT, ET AL Case Number: CVPO21-0196776 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Consolidate: Plaintiff Denise Cossuto moves to consolidate Case No. 196776 with Case No. 200449. Denise Cossuto is the Plaintiff in both matters and represented by the same counsel in both matters. Despite being properly noticed, none of the other parties in this action have filed an opposition. Motions to consolidate have certain pleading requirements that are described in CRC 3.350. Plaintiff has complied with the requirements set forth in CRC 3.350. (a) When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. CCP § 1048(a). The Court has discretion to order actions consolidated when they involve common questions of law or fact. CCP § 1048. Consolidation is appropriate where economy and convenience would be served by having the matters consolidated. The purpose of uniting separate lawsuits is to enhance trial court efficiency (i.e., to avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and procedures); and to avoid the substantial danger of inconsistent adjudications (i.e., different results because tried before different juries, or a judge and jury, etc.). See Todd- Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 976, 978-979. Consolidation is an extension of the liberal rules regarding joinder of parties and claims. The “common question” which justifies consolidation is usually one that would have justified joining the various parties in the same lawsuit at the outset. Where separate lawsuits have been filed, consolidation in effect permits a “joinder” at a later stage of the proceedings. See Petersen v. Bank of America (2014) 232 Cal. App. 4th 238, 252-253. Under the statute and the case law, there are two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment. See Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 1127. In these matters, Plaintiffs seek to consolidate the cases for all purposes, i.e., complete consolidation. The decision to either grant or deny a motion to consolidate is within the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal. App. 2d 509, 511. In determining whether to order consolidation, courts generally consider the following: 1. Timeliness: Whether consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved, or whether discovery in one or more of the cases has proceeded without all parties present; 2. Complexity: Whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and 3. Prejudice: Whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party. See Weil & Brown et al., CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2018), Ch. 12(I)-E. Consolidation is not proper if a party to the action is prejudiced by virtue of the consolidation. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal. 2d 428, 431-432. The two matters at issue here involve the same parties and the same set of facts. Neither of these matters are currently set for trial. There is no allegation that one is further along in discovery than the other or that discovery has proceeded without all parties present. Regarding complexity or confusion to a jury, it does not appear that consolidation would result in confusion for the jury. There also does not appear to be prejudice to any Defendant. The Motion to consolidate is GRANTED. Case No. 200449 is consolidated into Case No. 196776 for all purposes. Al future filings will be in Case No. 196776. Plaintiff provided a proposed Order for Case No.196776 but did not provide a proposed Order for 200449. Plaintiff is to prepare the Order for Case No. 200449. The Court confirms the review hearing on Monday, July 22, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63. Plaintiff is to provide notice of the review hearing to all parties. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer prior to the hearing regarding proposed dates for trial.

THE ESTATE OF JIMMIE CHARLES SNEED VS. PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES SHASTA LLC Case Number: 22CV-0199785 This matter is on calendar for trial setting. The Court finds this matter to be exempt from plan designation but intends to set the matter for trial no later than March 18, 2025. Defendant has posted jury fees but Plaintiff has not. Plaintiff is granted 10 days leave to post jury fees. A failure to post jury fees in that time will be deemed a waiver of the right to a jury. The parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to the hearing regarding proposed dates for trial. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

WATKINS, ET AL. VS. THE ESTATE OF KAREN MORAN Case Number: 23CV-0203208 This matter is on calendar for trial setting. The Court designates this matter as a Plan II case and intends to set the matter for trial no later than March 18, 2025. Both parties have posted jury fees. The parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to the hearing regarding proposed dates for trial. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar

Case Number: 23STCV21848 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Dept: 53 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Central District Department 53 immigrant rights defense council, llc ; Plaintiff , vs. laura e. vaca , et al.; Defendants . Case No.: 23STCV21848 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Time: 10:00 a.m. [tentative] Order RE: (1) motion to set aside court order of march 22, 2024 deeming requests for admissions admitted (2) motion for monetary sanctions against plaintiffs attorney MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Laura E. Vaca and Agencia Privada de Inmigracion, Inc. RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC (1) Motion to Set Aside Court Order of March 22, 2024 Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted (2) Motion for Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiffs Attorney The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with each motion. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS The court sustains plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLCs evidentiary objections, filed on June 26, 2024, because defendants Laura E. Vaca and Agencia Privada de Inmigracion, Inc. did not authenticate the exhibits to which the objections are directed. MOTION TO SET ASIDE COURT ORDER OF MARCH 22, 2024 DEEMING REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED Defendants Laura E. Vaca (Vaca) and Agencia Privada de Inmigracion, Inc. (API) (collectively, Defendants) request that the court set aside its March 22, 2024 order granting the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted, filed by plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC (Plaintiff), or, alternatively, striking Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. First, the court finds that Defendants have not shown that the court should set aside its March 22, 2024 order granting Plaintiffs motion and deeming admitted the truth of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission directed to defendant API. Defendants contend that API responded to Plaintiffs discovery at the same time that Vaca served her responses. In support of that contention, Defendants have filed Defendants Laura E. Vaca and Agencia Privada De Inmigracion, Inc.s Responses to Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLCs Requests for Admission, Set One, served on Plaintiff on November 10, 2023. (Mot., Exhibit A, pp. 1, 8.) Defendants have also submitted the November 27, 2023 email from Plaintiffs counsel, in which counsel stated that [b]ecause [Defendants] responded jointly, [counsel would] treat the responses together. (Mot., Ex. C, p. 1.) Defendants have not, however, presented evidence or argument establishing that these responses were served in connection with the Requests for Admission that were the subject of the courts March 22, 2024 order. Specifically, the court ruled on Plaintiffs motion as to the Requests for Admission that were served on defendant API on December 28, 2023. (March 22, 2024 Order, p. 2:3-4; Pl. Mot. to Deem Admissions Admitted, filed Feb. 9, 2024, p. 1:22-26 [moving for an order deeming admitted the admissions in the requests served on API on December 28, 2023], and Medvei Decl., Ex. 1 [Requests for Admission, Set One, served on API on December 28, 2023].) Defendants did not present evidence or argument establishing that (1) API served responses to the Requests for Admission that Plaintiff propounded on it on December 28, 2023, or (2) APIs responses to the Requests for Admission directed to defendant Vaca may constitute responses to the Requests for Admission directed to API, particularly in light of the facts that (i) Plaintiff served the subject discovery on API on December 28, 2023, but (ii) the responses that API argues satisfied its obligation to respond to that discovery were served on Plaintiff before that date, on November 10, 2023. Further, Defendants did not argue, or present evidence establishing, that API should be relieved of its admissions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300. The court therefore finds that Defendants have not shown that the court should set aside its March 22, 2024 order granting Plaintiffs motion to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission directed to defendant API. Second, the court finds that Defendants have not shown that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action by failing to present adequate argument establishing lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the court finds that Defendants have not shown that the court should strike Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint and dismiss this action on that ground. Third, the court finds that Defendants have not shown that Plaintiff does not have standing. Thus, the court finds that Defendants have not shown that the court should strike Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint and dismiss this action on that ground. Here, Plaintiff has prayed for, inter alia , injunctive relief and attorneys fees. (FAC, p. 10, Prayer, ¶¶ 1-2.) Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 22446.5, [a]ny other party who, upon information and belief, claims a violation of this chapter has been committed by an immigration consultant may bring a civil action for injunctive relief on behalf of the general public and, upon prevailing, shall recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22446.5, subd. (b); Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC v. Hudson Ins. Co. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 305, 308 [pursuant to this statute, any person who believes an [Immigration Consultant Act] violation has been committed may bring a civil action on behalf of the general public seeking solely injunctive relief].) Defendants have not shown that Plaintiff, as a party who claims that Defendants have violated the Immigration Consultant Act, may not bring this action for injunctive relief against them. (FAC ¶¶ 14-15, 19-20.) Moreover, while the court notes that Defendants have cited Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC , supra , 84 Cal.App.5th 305 in support of their argument, in that case, the court held that Plaintiff did not fall within the class of persons who may recover against an ICA bond , and did not hold that Plaintiff may not bring an action under section 22446.5, subdivision (b). ( Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC , supra , 84 Cal.App.5th at p. 261 [emphasis added].) Instead, the court recognized that this statute sets forth three classes of plaintiff who may pursue actions against immigrant consultants who violate the Immigration Consultant Act, including any party who believes a violation has been committed by an immigration consultant pursuant to section 22446.5, subdivision (b). ( Id. at pp. 309-310.) Fourth, the court finds that Defendants have not shown that Plaintiffs cause of action for violation of the Immigration Consultant Act is preempted by federal law. ( People v. Salcido (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 529, 534 [holding that federal law does not preempt the application of the [Immigrant Consultant Act] to the defendant].) Thus, the court finds that Defendants have not shown that the court should strike the First Amended Complaint or dismiss this action on that ground. For the reasons set forth above, the court denies Defendants motion. Finally, the court is concerned about the tone and content of a number of remarks made by Defendants and their counsel in the papers filed in connection with this motion, which include personal attacks, disparaging remarks, taunts, and insults against Plaintiffs counsel. (Mot. to Set Aside, pp. 5:17-19, 14:27, 15:13-14, and Vaca Decl., p. 18:5, 18:24-25.) The court finds that such remarks are distracting from the merits of the issues and arguments presented, are not persuasive advocacy, and have no place in written or oral submissions, presentations, or communications made to the court or to other parties or counsel in this litigation. As the court states in section 1 of its Courtroom Information for Department 53 posted on the courts website, [t]he court places a very high value on civility, courtesy, and professionalism in the practice of law and the judicial process.¿ The court expects all attorneys and parties to treat each other, witnesses, jurors, court personnel, the court, and others with the highest level of civility, courtesy, and professionalism, both inside and outside the courtroom. The court expects all parties, attorneys, and other participants in this litigation to govern their conduct accordingly. MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY Defendants move the court for an order awarding monetary sanctions in their favor and against counsel for Plaintiff, Sebastian Medvei (Medvei), in the total amount of $145,756.30. It appears that Defendants move for this relief on the ground that Medvei engaged in misuses of the discovery process by (1) violating the meet and confer requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, 2031.310, and 2033.290, and (2) filing discovery motions beyond the 45-day deadline that applies to motions to compel further discovery responses. (Mot., pp. 2:9-3:19 5:19-21, 5:30-6:15, 7:5-6 [The express admission to engage in the meet and confer requirement, when mandatory, makes the award of attorney fees obligatory].) First, the court finds that Defendants have not shown that Plaintiffs counsel, Medvei, engaged in a misuse of the discovery process in electing not to meet and confer before filing three discovery motions on behalf of Plaintiff. As noted by Defendants, Plaintiff filed the following three motions on February 9, 2024: (1) motion to deem admitted the Requests for Admission served on defendant API, which the court granted on March 22, 2024, (2) motion to compel defendant API to respond to Plaintiffs Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, which is set for hearing on October 28, 2024, and (3) motion to compel defendant API to respond to Plaintiffs Form Interrogatories, Set One, which is set for hearing on October 29, 2024. As a threshold matter, the court notes that it has not yet ruled on Plaintiffs motions to compel defendant APIs responses to its document demands and interrogatories. Thus, any determination on the merits of those motions is premature. The court does not issue any rulings as to whether Plaintiff has shown that it is entitled to the relief requested in those motions. However, the court notes that Plaintiff filed those motions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.280, 2031.300, and 2030.290, respectively. (Pl. Feb. 9, 2024 Mot. to Deem Admissions Admitted, p. 2:1-3; Pl. Feb. 9, 2024 Mot. to Compel Responses to Doc. Demands, pp. 2:1-3, 4:1-20; Pl. Feb. 9, 2024 Mot. to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, pp. 2:1-3, 4:1-17.) Those statutes do not set forth a meet and confer requirement. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.280, 2031.300, 2030.290.) Plaintiff did not file its motions pursuant to sections 2030.300, 2031.310, and 2033.290, and therefore Defendants have not shown that the meet and confer requirements of those statutes apply to Plaintiffs motions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.290, subd. (b)(1) [meet and confer declaration required for motion to compel further responses to requests for admission], 2030.300, subd. (b)(1) [meet and confer declaration required for motion to compel further responses to interrogatories], 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) [meet and confer declaration required for motion to compel further responses to document demands].) To the extent that Defendants contend that Plaintiff brought its motions under the incorrect statutes (i.e., based on Defendants assertion that defendant API did serve responses to the subject discovery), the remedy would be to file opposition papers requesting that the court deny those motions. [1] The court finds, however, that Defendants, have not shown, for purposes of this motion only, that Medvei violated the meet and confer requirements of statutes inapplicable to the motions that Plaintiff filed on February 9, 2024. Second, the court finds that Defendants have not shown that Plaintiffs counsel, Medvei, engaged in a misuse of the discovery process by filing the three discovery motions on behalf of Plaintiff on February 9, 2024. Defendants contend that Plaintiff waived the right to compel further responses to discovery by failing to file the three motions described above within 45 days of the date of November 10, 2023. However, as set forth above, Plaintiff filed its motions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.280, 2031.300, and 2030.290, which are not subject to the 45-day deadline set forth in sections 2033.290, 2031.310, and 2030.300. To the extent that Defendants contend that Plaintiff should have filed its motions pursuant to those statutes and failed to satisfy their requirements, Defendants may file opposition papers requesting that the court deny those motions. [2] For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Defendants have not shown that Medvei has engaged in a misuse of the discovery process and therefore denies their motion for sanctions. The court denies Medveis request for monetary sanctions against Defendants. ORDER The court denies defendants Laura E. Vaca and Agencia Privada de Inmigracion, Inc.s motion to set aside March 22, 2024 order deeming requests for admission admitted. The court denies defendants Laura E. Vaca and Agencia Privada de Inmigracion, Inc.s motion for sanctions. The court orders plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 10, 2024 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court [1] As set forth above, the court does not issue any rulings regarding whether Plaintiff has properly filed those motions or has shown that it is entitled to the relief requested therein. [2] As set forth above, the court does not make any rulings as to the merits of Plaintiffs pending motions to compel discovery responses.

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.

Case Number: 22STCV17484 Hearing Date: July 11, 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 11, 2024 CASE NUMBER : 22STCV17484 MOTIONS : Petition for Minors Compromise MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Andres Sijifredo Barajas OPPOSING PARTY: Unopposed The Court has reviewed the petition filed on June 11, 2024 by Petitioner Andres Sijifredo Barajas (Petitioner) on behalf of Claimant Andres Julian Barajas, age 10. The Court denies the petition without prejudice for the following reasons: In attachment 8, Petitioner provided medical records from two days after the subject motor vehicle accident. However, the Court requires further records, or a parent declaration attesting that Claimant is fully recovered from the chest and back pain. Due to the selection in item 11b(3), Petitioner must provide attachment 11b(3). Petitioner requests $333.33 in attorney fees which represents 33.33% of the gross settlement. Petitioner must include an attorney declaration in attachment 13a discussing the factors in California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(b). The declaration by counsel filed on June 11, 2024 is insufficient; additionally, the attorney declaration must be attached to the petition. As stated in the previous petition, attachment 17e must be provided. Accordingly, the Court denies the petition without prejudice. Petitioner shall give notice and file a proof of service of such.