Petition For Gun Violence Restraining Order Of San Diego Police Department Vs Shelby

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 14, 2024 EVENT DATE: 06/14/2024 EVENT TIME: 01:30:00 PM DEPT.: C-60 JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner CASE NO.: 37-2024-00005005-CU-NP-CTL CASE TITLE: HINSDALE MOTORSPORTS LLC VS LASCO [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil) CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: The court will hear from the parties regarding the status of the case. The court notes that if a ruling is necessary with respect to Plaintiff Hinsdale Motorsports, LLC's application for writ of possession, the court is inclined to grant the application. Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate its right to possession of the vehicles (namely, by demonstrating that title is in its name). Defendant David B. Lasco's evidence at best raises an issue of whether he is owed a share of the value of the vehicles. It is also clear from both Defendant's declaratory evidence and his cross-complaint that his concerns are money-focused; other than their monetary value, the vehicles do not hold a unique or special interest to him. Conversely, Plaintiff's principal and Defendant's son, David E. Lasco, has presented sufficient evidence to show the vehicles do hold a unique and special interest to him. He has also sufficiently rebutted Defendant's claims of indebtedness and insolvency, upon which Defendant has asserted his son, if he gains possession of the vehicles, will immediately sell the vehicles to pay his debts. Event ID: 3124951 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 47 Page: 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024 EVENT DATE: 06/14/2024 EVENT TIME: 10:30:00 AM DEPT.: C-64 JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone CASE NO.: 37-2023-00054256-CU-PO-CTL CASE TITLE: ATKINSON VS SAMMY'S WOODFIRED PIZZA [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: PI/PD/WD - Other EVENT TYPE: Demurrer / Motion to Strike CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Stones South Bay Corp. d/b/a Seven Mile Casino (erroneously sued as Sammy's Woodfired Pizza)'s demurer to the complaint filed by Plaintiff Matthew Atkinson is SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART. Stones' motion to strike Atkinson's prayer for punitive damages and related allegations is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Preliminary Matters Stones reserved a hearing for its demurrer. However, it did not reserve a separate hearing for its motion to strike. The court will address both, but failure to reserve a hearing date in the future may result in the motion not being heard. (Super. Ct. San Diego County, Local Rules, rule 2.1.19.A.) First Cause of Action Atkinson's first cause of action is for "personal injury." Stones demurs on the ground that this cause of action is duplicative of the second cause of action for negligence. Although there is a split of authority, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, has held that a demurrer may be sustained when a cause of action is duplicative of another cause of action. (See Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290 & fn. 12.) The first and second causes of action both allege that Atkinson suffered food poisoning after Sammy's served him a bowl of pho containing a cockroach. The first cause of action does not appear to be premised on a different theory of liability than the second cause of action (e.g., intentional conduct as opposed to negligent conduct). Atkinson did not address this aspect of the demurrer in his opposition or otherwise explain how the two claims meaningfully differ. The demurrer to the first cause of action is therefore sustained. Second Cause of Action Event ID: 3093008 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 37 Page: 1 CASE TITLE: ATKINSON VS SAMMY'S CASE NUMBER: 37-2023-00054256-CU-PO-CTL WOODFIRED PIZZA [IMAGED] Atkinson's second cause of action is for "negligence." Stones demurs on the ground that Atkinson failed to sufficiently allege a causal connection between the cockroach and his food poisoning. In food poisoning cases, the trier of fact is entitled to make reasonable inferences to determine whether a restaurant was the cause of the patron's illness. (See generally Sarti v. Salt Creek Ltd. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1187; see, e.g., Stell v. Townsend Cal. Glace Fruits (1934) 138 Cal.App.Supp. 777 [affirming judgment for plaintiff who had eaten plain breakfast, but became violently ill and was diagnosed with food poisoning shortly after eating soft, slimy, and peculiar tasting fish for dinner at defendant's restaurant].) Here, Atkinson allegedly consumed a bowl of pho containing a cockroach. Cockroaches can carry disease, contaminate food, and pose a risk of illness. (See Health & Saf. Code, §§ 113180, 11393, 11393.1.) Within 12 hours, Atkinson allegedly became violently sick. He was then allegedly admitted to the emergency department at Scripps Mercy Hospital Chula Vista where doctors diagnosed him with food poisoning from the roach. For pleading purposes, this is sufficient to allege causation. The demurrer to the second cause of action is therefore overruled. Third Cause of Action Atkinson's third of action is for "gross negligence." Stones demurs on the grounds that there is no independent cause of action for gross negligence, and its alleged conduct was in any event not grossly negligent. "California does not recognize a distinct common law cause of action for gross negligence apart from negligence." (Epochal Enterprises, Inc. v. LF Encinitas Properties, LLC (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 44, 55.) "Gross negligence" is simply a difference "in degree, not in kind." (Id. at p. 56.) That difference only matters in some scenarios, such as when "a particular statute that is at issue in the case creates a distinction based on a standard of gross negligence" or "if case law has created a distinction between gross and ordinary negligence." (See CACI 425, Directions for Use.) Atkinson does not explain the importance of alleging "gross negligence" in this case. Although he argues that Stones' conduct violated the Health and Safety Code, none of the sections he cites imposes a "gross negligence" standard. Even if the difference did matter, there is still no independent cause of action for gross negligence. Any facts establishing gross negligence should simply be pled under the negligence cause of action. The demurrer to the third cause of action is therefore sustained. Fourth Cause of Action Atkinson's fourth cause of action is for "res ipsa loquitur." Stones demurs on the ground that there is no independent cause of action for res ipsa loquitur. "Where it applies, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits a finder of fact to infer that something was caused by the defendant's negligence, despite the lack of any evidence establishing such negligence or causation." (Barber v. Southern California Edison Co. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 227, 246.) "The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies where the evidence satisfies three conditions: (1) the accident or injury must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been Event ID: 3093008 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 37 Page: 2 CASE TITLE: ATKINSON VS SAMMY'S CASE NUMBER: 37-2023-00054256-CU-PO-CTL WOODFIRED PIZZA [IMAGED] due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff." (Ibid.) If those three conditions are shown, the burden shifts to the defendant to produce evidence "sufficient to sustain a finding that any negligence on [its] part was not a proximate cause of plaintiff's injury," at which point "the res ipsa loquitur presumption disappears." (Ibid.) It is unnecessary to allege a separate cause of action for "res ipsa loquitor." (See Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 737, 745.) Rather, "the allegations of fact necessary for application of the doctrine" may simply be alleged under the negligence cause of action that the doctrine will help establish. (See ibid.) Atkinson argues that he can rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor to establish that the presence of the roach in his pho was the result of Sammy's negligence. But the present issue is not whether the doctrine applies, but whether the doctrine is an independent cause of action. It is not. The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is therefore sustained. Punitive Damages Atkinson prays for punitive damages. Stones moves to strike the prayer (request 4), as well as various allegations in support of the prayer (requests 1–3), on the ground that the facts pled do not support that relief. "Punitive damages may not be pleaded generally." (Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193.) Rather, a prayer for punitive damages must be supported by "specific factual allegations." (Ibid.; see Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166; G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 32.) But provided there are such factual allegations, a prayer for punitive damages is not rendered deficient because the complaint also includes conclusory terms such as "oppressive." (See Blegen v. Superior Court (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 959, 963.) Nonintentional torts "may form the basis for punitive damages when the conduct constitutes conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others." (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 907; accord Magallanes v. Superior Court (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 878, 882–883 & fn. 1; Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 285–288.) However, when the defendant is a corporation, an award of punitive damages "must rest on the malice of the corporation's employees." (Wilson v. Southern California Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123, 154.) The law "does not impute every employee's malice to the corporation. Instead, the oppression, fraud, or malice must be perpetrated, authorized, or knowingly ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation." (Wilson v. Southern California Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123, 154.) A prayer for punitive damages against a corporation must be struck if such conduct on behalf of an officer, director, or managing agent is not alleged. (See Scannell v. County of Riverside (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 596, 614; Grieves, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at pp. 167–168; compare O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 798, 806; Magallanes, supra, 167 Cal.App.3d at p. 882–883 & fn. 1.) Here, Atkinson alleges that the roach infestation occurred as a result of Stones' unsanitary practices and conditions in the kitchen. Stones had allegedly been aware of the roach infestation problem for months. Yet Stones allegedly failed to ensure that a roach was not mixed in with his soup, failed to take any industry standard remedial measures to eliminate the infestation, and failed to shut down the restaurant pending elimination of the infestation. Rather, Stones allegedly disregarded the health threat posed by the roach infestation in wanton and reckless disregard of the safety of its customers. These allegations are relevant not only to the remaining cause of action for negligence, but also to establishing the malice required for punitive damages. Event ID: 3093008 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 37 Page: 3 CASE TITLE: ATKINSON VS SAMMY'S CASE NUMBER: 37-2023-00054256-CU-PO-CTL WOODFIRED PIZZA [IMAGED] However, Atkinson does not allege that an officer, director, or managing agent of Stones caused, authorized, or knowingly permitted any unsanitary conditions to exist. Absent those additional allegations, the prayer for punitive damages is stricken with leave to amend. Conclusion The demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained. Atkinson did not address that cause of action in his opposition, nor did he request leave to amend it. There does not appear to be a reasonable probability that he can amend it to differentiate it from his negligence cause of action. As such, the demurrer to that cause of action is sustained without leave to amend. The demurrer to the second cause of action is overruled. The demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action is sustained. As these are not independently recognized causes of action, there is not a reasonable probability that Atkinson can amend to render them viable. As such, the demurrer to those causes of action is sustained without leave to amend. However, the court grants leave to amend the second cause of action to incorporate allegations from the third and fourth causes of action to the extent Atkinson deems appropriate. The motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part. The prayer for punitive damages is stricken, but the other allegations are not, and leave to amend is granted with respect to the punitive damages claim. Accordingly, Atkinson shall have 10 days to file an Amended Complaint consistent with the above. Event ID: 3093008 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 37 Page: 4

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 30, 2024 EVENT DATE: 05/31/2024 EVENT TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT.: C-72 JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin CASE NO.: 37-2023-00015013-CU-CR-CTL CASE TITLE: CORTEZ VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Civil Rights EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil) CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 02/15/2024 Plaintiff's motion for discovery of law enforcement officer personnel records is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. A. Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045, which codified the California Supreme Court's decision in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, allow discovery of certain relevant information in peace officer personnel records on a showing of good cause. First, the party seeking disclosure must file a motion supported by declarations showing good cause for discovery and materiality to the pending case. People v. Samuels (2005) 36 Cal.4th 96, 109. Once good cause has been established, the court is required to conduct an in camera review of the records to determine what, if any, information should be disclosed to the requesting party. Id. B. Plaintiff has established good cause for an in camera review of the personnel files for Officers Chalit Caranto, Michael Johnson, Andrew Torres, and Michael Crowley regarding any investigative documents/internal affairs reports for the incidents giving rise to this specific case. See Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1089. C. With respect to alleged prior instances of excessive force, plaintiff has submitted evidence showing that the officer defendants used excessive force while he was a pretrial detainee in the County jail. (See Lamere Decl., ¶¶ 7, 34.) He contends that past incidents of excessive force support his Bane Act claim, as they tend to show the absence of mistake or negligence. See Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 67. The court agrees. While plaintiff is not entitled to all excessive force documentation in the officers' personnel files (People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1220), plaintiff has established good cause for an in camera review of any complaints, grievances, reports, allegations, claims, or other statements contending that the officers used excessive force in a custodial setting. D. The motion is otherwise denied. "[O]nly documentation of past officer misconduct which is similar to the misconduct alleged...in the pending litigation is relevant and therefore subject to discovery." California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1021. In this case, none of plaintiff's claims are based on allegations that the officer defendants failed to intervene against another officer's use of excessive force, engaged in an act of dishonesty, failed to intervene against another officer's act of dishonesty, or violated Department policies or procedures. Moreover, even if the requests were sufficiently tailored to plaintiff's claims, plaintiff has not explained Event ID: 3088080 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 7 Page: 1 CASE TITLE: CORTEZ VS COUNTY OF SAN CASE NUMBER: 37-2023-00015013-CU-CR-CTL DIEGO [IMAGED] how the records would be used to establish liability or evaluate witness credibility. See Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1026 (moving party must show how the information sought could lead to or be evidence potentially admissible at trial). E. Based on the foregoing, the San Diego Sheriff's Department is directed to make available to the court all "potentially relevant" documents described in subparts B and C. See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-29. The court will hear from the parties as to proposed dates for a further hearing regarding the in camera review. Any information disclosed following the in camera review will be subject to the parties' protective order on file (ROA 57). Evid. Code § 1045(e). Event ID: 3088080 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 7 Page: 2

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024 EVENT DATE: 06/14/2024 EVENT TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT.: C-67 JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth CASE NO.: 37-2021-00044250-CU-BT-CTL CASE TITLE: GARIBALDI VS NOLI CONSTRUCTION INC [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Business Tort EVENT TYPE: Discovery Hearing CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: The court is inclined to deny the motion to compel. However, the court will hear from Mr. Garibaldi's counsel as to why expert testimony is necessary to state damages, assuming that Mr. Garibaldi has already paid to repair the alleged injuries to the property. The court will also hear from Noli Construction Inc. as to what additional facts it expects to uncover for Special Interrogatory Nos. 181, 191, 201, and 206, particularly when it has already propounded a relatively large number of interrogatories for the case and had an opportunity to depose Mr. Garibaldi. Event ID: 3104117 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 6 Page: 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 12, 2024 EVENT DATE: 06/18/2024 EVENT TIME: 01:30:00 PM DEPT.: C-73 JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil CASE NO.: 37-2021-00000121-CU-PO-CTL CASE TITLE: HILDEBRAND VS OVERTURE SAN MARCOS [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: PI/PD/WD - Other EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil) CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 05/09/2024 On June 7, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to continue the hearing of this Motion. The Court permitted no more briefs and represented that the tentative ruling (ROA # 162) would be re-published. See ROA # 166. The Motion (ROA # 157) of Plaintiff NANCY HILDEBRAND ("Plaintiff") for an order for leave to withdraw the responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One propounded by Defendant SHERI BLEAU ("Defendant"), is DENIED. "A party may withdraw or amend an admission made in response to a request for admission only on leave of court granted after notice to all parties." Code Civ. Proc. 2033.300(a). "The court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission only if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits." Id. at (b). Section 2033.300(a) permits amendment or withdrawal of "deemed admissions" ordered by the court under section 2033.280(b), as well as admissions expressly made by a party. See Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 973, 979. The statutory language "mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect" is identical to some of the language used in section 473(b), which states that a court may "relieve a party ... from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1418, 1419. The use of identical terms in two different statutes serving similar purposes suggests that the Legislature intended those terms to have the same meaning in both statutes. Id. at 1419. Section 2033.300 is designed to eliminate undeserved windfalls obtained through requests for admission and to further the policy favoring resolution of lawsuits on the merits. Id. at 1420. Therefore, any doubts must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief. Id. Denial of a motion to withdraw or amend an admission "is limited to circumstances where it is clear that Event ID: 3141030 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: Page: 1 CASE TITLE: HILDEBRAND VS OVERTURE SAN CASE NUMBER: 37-2021-00000121-CU-PO-CTL MARCOS [IMAGED] the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was inexcusable, or where it is clear that the withdrawal or amendment would substantially prejudice the party who obtained the admission in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits." Id. at 1420, 1421. The requests for admission were originally served on October 24, 2022. After an extension, the responses were due on December 5, 2022. However, only objections were served at that time. Defendants provided additional extensions, but ultimately filed a Motion seeking to deem the requests admitted on April 10, 2023. Plaintiff did not submit written oppositions to this Motion or serve the late responses in lieu of an opposition. On May 12, 2023, this Court granted the Motion to deem the requests admitted. The declaration of counsel states that counsel lost contact with Plaintiff until November 5, 2023. Plaintiff was suffering from "numerous health issues and was hospitalized from July 21, 2023, to August 21, 2023." Plaintiff continues to experience "ongoing health concerns and disabilities." Also, "during the end of 2023 into the beginning of 2024" Plaintiff's counsel "was also suffering from medical illness." For purposes of this Motion, the only time frame that matters is the period from October 24, 2022 to May 12, 2023. The requests would not have been deemed admitted if substantive responses had been served at any time before the Motion was granted on May 12, 2023. Plaintiff's hospitalization in July and August of 2023 is immaterial. Counsel's medical issues from late 2023 until early 2024 are immaterial. Counsel's declaration demonstrates that substantive responses were not served prior to May 12, 2023 for two potential reasons. First, counsel lost contact with Plaintiff during this time. Second, plaintiff may have been suffering from "numerous health issues." However, it is not stated whether counsel lost contact with plaintiff for the entire period of October 24, 2022 to May 12, 2023. There is no declaration from Plaintiff explaining the reasons why Plaintiff did not maintain contact with counsel, provide counsel with updated contact information, and/or proactively work with counsel to litigate this action. There is also no statement from Plaintiff specifically stating that she suffered from one or more medical conditions for the entire period of October 24, 2022 to May 12, 2023, and this rendered her unable to work with her counsel to prepare discovery responses for this entire period. Given this incomplete record, the Court is unable to conclude that the failure to serve responses to the requests for admission resulted from Plaintiff's mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. The Motion is denied on this basis. Event ID: 3141030 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: Page: 2

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 14, 2024 EVENT DATE: 06/14/2024 EVENT TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT.: 1402 JUDICIAL OFFICER: CASE NO.: 37-2023-00052858-CL-CL-CTL CASE TITLE: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA VS CARDIEL [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Limited CASE TYPE: Rule 3.740 Collections EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil) CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Facts Admitted is granted. The Court will sign the proposed order consistent with this ruling. Event ID: 3120558 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 14 Page: 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024 EVENT DATE: 06/14/2024 EVENT TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT.: C-60 JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner CASE NO.: 37-2021-00022805-CU-BT-CTL CASE TITLE: ANIMAL PROTECTION AND RESCUE LEAGUE INC VS COX [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Business Tort EVENT TYPE: Demurrer / Motion to Strike CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Defendant John H. Cox's demurrer is OVERRULED, and Defendant John Cox for Governor 2021, Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED without prejudice. The court will not overlook the multiple procedural infirmities with Defendants' motion. First and most importantly, there is no basis or precedent for Defendants' tactic of combining two separate motions (one of which is technically an objection to the pleadings) brought by two separate parties under two separate statutory provisions. (Compare Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10 et seq. with Code Civ. Proc., § 438.) The tactic is also contrary to this court's local rules. (See San Diego Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.1.19.A ["Any party, or attorney for a party, who desires to have any demurrer, motion, ex parte application, or order to show cause set for hearing must reserve a hearing date through the online reservation system . . . Failure to reserve a date for hearing will result in the demurrer, motion, ex parte application, or order to show cause hearing not being heard."].) The "motion" is deniable on this basis alone. Second, the California Rules of Court require that "[e]ach ground of demurrer must be in a separate paragraph and must state whether it applies to the entire complaint, cross-complaint, or answer, or to specified causes of action or defenses." (CRC 3.1320, subd. (a).) A separate subdivision of Rule 3.1320 specifies that a "party filing a demurrer must serve and file therewith a notice of hearing that must specify a hearing date . . . ." (CRC 3.1320, subd. (c).) This suggests that the demurrer, the notice of demurrer, and the memorandum in support of the demurrer are all intended to be separate documents or at least separately identified sections. But here, Defendant John H. Cox failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.1320, subdivision (a), by failing to include the demurrer either as a separate document, or as a separately identified section. (See also Code Civ. Proc., § 430.60 ["A demurrer shall distinctly specify the grounds upon which any of the objections to the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer are taken. Unless it does so, it may be disregarded."].) Third, Defendants' combined notice failed to state the (separate) legal grounds for each aspect of the motion. (CRC 3.1110, subd. (a) ["A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order."].) Finally, the court rejects Defendants' attempt to correct the above deficiencies, which effectively involve defective notice, by filing erratas a week before the hearing. Defective notice cannot be cured in this manner, and the new notice and demurrer are otherwise untimely, as they were filed and served less than 16 court days before the noticed hearing date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) For these reasons, the "demurrer" is overruled and the motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied without prejudice. Event ID: 3114030 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 19 Page: 1 CASE TITLE: ANIMAL PROTECTION AND CASE NUMBER: 37-2021-00022805-CU-BT-CTL RESCUE LEAGUE INC VS COX If the tentative is confirmed, the minute order will be the order of the court, and Defendant John Cox has 10 days from entry of the order to answer the first amended complaint. Event ID: 3114030 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 19 Page: 2

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 20, 2024 EVENT DATE: 06/21/2024 EVENT TIME: 09:30:00 AM DEPT.: C-66 JUDICIAL OFFICER:Wendy M. Behan CASE NO.: 37-2020-00041274-CU-BC-CTL CASE TITLE: NGUYEN VS FLORIAN [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Breach of Contract/Warranty EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil) CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor MYCHELLE NGUYEN's Motion for an Assignment Order against Defendant/Judgment Debtor GABRIELA CUETO is GRANTED in part. California Code of Civil Procedure §708.510 states: "(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, upon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the court may order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor ... all or part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is conditioned upon future developments, including but not limited to the following types of payments: ... (2) Rents. (3) Commissions.... The moving party has met the requirements for an assignment motion including (1) the application must be made by noticed motion [C.C.P. §708.510(a)] and was properly served [Section 708.510(b)]; (2) the order must apply to monies now due or to become due in the future, even contingent interests [C.C.P. §708.510(a)]; (3) the interests are assignable [Comment to C.C.P. §708.510]; (4) the amount assigned does not exceed the judgment amount [C.C.P.§708.510(d)]; and (5) the assignment is reasonable [C.C.P. §708.510( c )]. The application has been made by noticed motion filed on 5/23/24 [ROA 104 105] The Application was served on Judgment Debtor by First Class Mail on the same date. [ROA 109] Judgment Debtor GABRIELA CUETO is a real estate salesperson licensed with the State of California. (See Decl. Froelich; ¶ 5, Ex. 1). Debtor's responsible broker is Compass California III, Inc., a real estate company located at 12860 El Camino Real, Ste. 100, San Diego, CA 92130 (See Decl. Froelich; ¶ 6, Ex. 1). As such, debtor is entitled to future commissions, which would assignable. Based on the evidence presented to the Court, on Compass' website, Debtor is featured as the listing agent for a residence in El Cajon, CA with a listing price of $1,199,000 (See Decl. Froelich; ¶ 7, Ex. 2). Debtor has a right to commissions from this particular property. The Court orders that the assignment order is limited to the commissions from this particular property. As proposed the order is limited to 25% of the commissions, which would not exceed the judgment. The Court finds that limiting assignment to the specific property and the 25% is reasonable. The Court will sign the proposed assignment order, modifying it to specify it is limited to commissions related to the specific property. [ROA 108] Event ID: 3134475 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 28 Page: 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024 EVENT DATE: 06/14/2024 EVENT TIME: 08:30:00 AM DEPT.: C-74 JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman CASE NO.: 37-2022-00049007-CU-PO-CTL CASE TITLE: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY VS JK COMMUNICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION INC [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: PI/PD/WD - Other EVENT TYPE: Demurrer / Motion to Strike CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer Cross-Defendant Camarillo Drilling, Inc.'s demurrer to the cross-complaint of Defendant/Cross-Complainant JK Communications and Construction, Inc. dba Kleven Construction is OVERRULED in its entirety. First Cause of Action – and Breach of Contract for Express Indemnity The court finds the cross-complaint is not uncertain and alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of contract for express indemnity [XC ¶¶ 5-11]. Although Kleven does not attach the alleged contract to the cross-complaint, the court finds the cross-complaint sufficiently alleges the "legal effect of the contract." Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 199. Camarillo seeks further specificity as to the exact parties to the contract and as to the date when the contract was executed. Such specificity is more properly the subject of discovery. See, Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616. Camarillo also relies on CCP § 430.10(f) and argues that it is difficult to ascertain whether the contract is written, oral or implied by conduct. However, the cross-complaint specifically alleges that the contract was written [XC ¶ 6]. The issues Camarillo raises as to the terms of the actual contract between Camarillo and Kleven are factual issues not properly resolved on demurrer. A demurrer challenges only defects that appear on the face of the pleading. CCP § 430.30. Third Cause of Action – Equitable Indemnity Fourth Cause of Action - Contribution The court finds the cross-complaint is not uncertain and alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action for equitable indemnity [XC ¶¶ 12-15] and contribution [XC ¶¶ 16, 17]. As above, any further specificity is more properly the subject of discovery. Motion to Strike Cross-Defendant Camarillo Drilling, Inc.'s motion to strike the cross-complaint of Event ID: 3099923 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 12 Page: 1 CASE TITLE: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CASE NUMBER: 37-2022-00049007-CU-PO-CTL COMPANY VS JK Defendant/Cross-Complainant JK Communications and Construction, Inc. dba Kleven Construction is DENIED. For the reasons set forth in this court's ruling on Camarillo's demurrer, the court finds the first, third and fourth causes of action sufficiently pled. As Kleven acknowledges the term "NEGLIGENCE" should be stricken from the caption of the cross-complaint, the court strikes the term "NEGLIGENCE" from the caption of Kleven's cross-complaint [ROA 30]. Camarillo shall answer within 10 days of this ruling. If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion. Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear. Event ID: 3099923 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 12 Page: 2

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024 EVENT DATE: 06/14/2024 EVENT TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT.: C-72 JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin CASE NO.: 37-2023-00031911-CU-MC-CTL CASE TITLE: EDEN VS MEENAXI ENTERPRISE INC [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Misc Complaints - Other EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil) CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 04/11/2024 Plaintiff's unopposed motion for entry of stipulated consent judgment is GRANTED. The court finds that (1) the warnings required by the settlement (Charo Decl., Ex. A at § 3.3) comply with Health and Safety Code section 25249.6, (2) the award of attorney's fees ($19,500) is reasonable under California law, and (3) the penalty amount ($5,500) is reasonable based on the criteria set forth in Health and Safety Code section 25249.7(b)(2). See Health & Saf. Code § 25249.7(f)(4). The court will sign the proposed order (ROA 28) submitted with the moving papers. Event ID: 3111301 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 12 Page: 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 20, 2024 EVENT DATE: 06/21/2024 EVENT TIME: 11:00:00 AM DEPT.: C-69 JUDICIAL OFFICER:Katherine Bacal CASE NO.: 37-2023-00035064-CU-OR-CTL CASE TITLE: GOLDEN VS LINTON MANAGEMENT INC [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Other Real Property EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil) CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: TENTATIVE RULING The Court on its own motion sets an Order to Show Cause for June 27, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. as to why this case and People v. Lisa Golden, Case No. 37-2021-00021672-CU-MC-CTL, should not be deemed related and reassigned to the same department. S.D. Superior Court Local Rule 1.2.2.B (supervising judge at each location is responsible for calendar operations of the departments and for assignment of proceedings in cases filed). Within two court days of this ruling, plaintiff is directed to serve notice of this order on all parties in this case, and to file this notice in Case Number 37-2021-00021672-CU-MC-CTL and serve it on all parties in that case. In light of the above, the Court defers holding the case management conference and defers ruling on the motion to be relieved as counsel of record and the motion to quash service of process. Event ID: 3126215 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 10 Page: 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 14, 2024 EVENT DATE: 06/14/2024 EVENT TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT.: 1402 JUDICIAL OFFICER: CASE NO.: 37-2023-00041158-CU-CL-CTL CASE TITLE: LVNV FUNDING LLC VS VALLEJO [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Other Collections EVENT TYPE: Discovery Hearing CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: No motion papers filed. Event ID: 3112763 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 7 Page: 1