Taliba Dudley V. Thomas Walters

IN RE: BORGES, JR Case Number: 24CV-0204781 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Brian Keith Borges, Jr. seeks to change his name to Brian Keith Van Meter. No proof of publication has been submitted. The Court requires a Certificate of Publication from the publishing newspaper before the Petition may be granted. If the Certificate of Publication is provided, the Court intends to grant the Petition, vacate all future dates, and close the file.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2024CUPT025407: IN THE MATTER OF: JASON HOWARD HORTON, JR. 07/24/2024 in Department 21 OSC - Name Change The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at 805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Tentative Ruling The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Petition for Change of Name pending filing of a Proof of Publication of the Court’s Order to Show Cause in THE ACORN for four consecutive weeks, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1277, subd. (a)1 and the Court’s May 28, 2024, Order to Show Cause. 1 Providing, in pertinent part, that: “…(2)(A) A copy of the order to show cause shall be published pursuant to Section 6064 of the Government Code in a newspaper of general circulation to be designated in the order published in the county. If no newspaper of general circulation is published in the county, a copy of the order to show cause shall be posted by the clerk of the court in three of the most public places in the county in which the court is located, for a like period. Proof shall be made to the satisfaction of the court of this publication or posting, at the time of the hearing of the application. 2024CUPT025407: IN THE MATTER OF: JASON HOWARD HORTON, JR. Analysis Code of Civil Procedure section 1277 provides in pertinent part: “…(2)(A) A copy of the order to show cause shall be published pursuant to Section 6064 of the Government Code in a newspaper of general circulation to be designated in the order published in the county. If no newspaper of general circulation is published in the county, a copy of the order to show cause shall be posted by the clerk of the court in three of the most public places in the county in which the court is located, for a like period. Proof shall be made to the satisfaction of the court of this publication or posting, at the time of the hearing of the application. (3) Four weekly publications shall be sufficient publication of the order to show cause. If the order is published in a daily newspaper, publication once a week for four successive weeks shall be sufficient.” (3) Four weekly publications shall be sufficient publication of the order to show cause. If the order is published in a daily newspaper, publication once a week for four successive weeks shall be sufficient.”

FLORES VS. SWIFT Case Number: 24CV-0204653 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued on June 13, 2024 to Plaintiff Eladio Flores, in pro per, for failure to timely serve pleadings on Defendant Taylor Alison Swift pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b). “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). The Complaint in this matter was filed on March 29, 2024 and no proof of service has been filed. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the Order to Show Cause. With no sufficient excuse for the delay, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff. 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. The hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is set for Monday, September 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64. 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 64 for review regarding status of service.

SIERRA PACIFIC WAGE AND HOUR CASES Case Number: 5235 Tentative Ruling on Case Management Conference: This coordinated proceeding is on calendar for a Case Management Conference. The Court has reviewed the Case Management Conference Statements filed by Plaintiff Smith and Defendant Sierra Pacific Industries. STAY. The McDonald matter remains stayed pending appeal. CLASS NOTICE. The Court appreciates the efforts made by SPI in identifying employees placed at SPI by staffing agencies and is in agreement with SPI’s suggestions regarding the employees at SPI placed by Sonora Employment Agency. The Court invites Plaintiff McDonald to discuss the proposals made by SPI. MOTIONS. There are currently no motions pending in the Smith matter. Pending in McDonald are SPI’s Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Court Order Due to Impossibility that was filed on August 31, 2023 and SPI’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Preservation and Production of Video Camera Footage that was filed on September 1, 2023. Both motions are stayed. TRIAL DATES. McDonald is not presently set for trial. The Court notes that Plaintiffs in Smith filed their Third Amended Complaint on February 28, 2024. SPI filed an Answer on April 2, 2024. As the matter is now at issue, the parties should be ready to discuss a timeline for a Motion for Class Certification. FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE. The Court intends to set a further Case Management Conference and will discuss available dates with counsel.

IN RE J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC Case Number: 24CV-0205373 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights: Petitioner J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC seeks Court approval to transfer a portion of Payee Brenda Hart’s annuity payment to Petitioner. The Petition seeks to transfer Payee’s structured settlement annuity comprising: A) 60 monthly payments of $328 each, beginning September 1, 2024, and ending August 1, 2029, and B) 1 payment of $75,000 on June 1, 2032. In exchange, the Payee will receive $44,000.00. Insurance Code §10134 et seq sets forth the various requirements for the transfer of a structured settlement. Ins. Code §10136 requires specific language in the form of a disclosure and further provides requirements related to the transfer agreement. A disclosure in compliance with Ins. Code §10136 has been provided as Exhibit B to the Petition. The California Purchase Contract (Exhibit A to Petition) contains the contractual provisions required by Ins. Code §10136. Ins. Code §10138 prohibits certain provisions from being included in the transfer agreement. The California Purchase Contract does not contain any of the provisions expressly prohibited by Ins. Code §10138. The Notice of Hearing was timely served on all interested parties. The procedural requirements have been satisfied. The Court must determine whether the transfer is “fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of his or her dependents.” Ins. Code §10137(a). The Petition lacks a supporting Declaration. The Petition states at page 4, ln. 10-15 that Payee would file a Declaration setting forth Payee’s basis for entering into this transaction, including an explanation why Payee feels it is in their best interest. As of the date of the preparation of this tentative ruling, no such declaration has been filed. This matter is continued to Monday, August 12, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64 for further proceedings on the Petition. The Court also notes that Petitioner did not provide a proposed Order as required by Local Rule of Court 5.17(D). No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

24CV01641 IN RE: MAROFSKY, NIREL SIMCHA EVENT: Petition for Change of Name If proper proof of publication is submitted at or before the hearing, the Petition will be granted. 2|Page

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 202200571586CUBC: So Cal Equestrian vs. Lowe 07/24/2024 in Department 40 Motion for Protective Order RE Defendants' Excessive Requests for Admission and Corresponding Form Interrogatory 17.1 Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $5285 The following is a statement of the court’s tentative ruling. The court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling after considering the parties’ oral arguments. The tentative ruling will have no legal effect unless adopted by the court. No notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative decision, you may notify the court by email to courtroom40@ventura.courts.ca.gov. Please include the hearing date, the case name and case number in the message. You must include all counsel and self-represented parties on your message. The court will not respond to your email. Do not use this email address for any other purpose without the court’s express permission. Do not include the court in any email communications between counsel. Do not call in lieu of sending an email, nor should you call to see if your email has been received. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. PLEASE NOTE: The court will not approve any request to appear by Court Call made after 4:00 p.m. on the court day prior to the scheduled hearing. Plaintiffs James Lowe, Shawn Getty Lowe, and Douglas Getty (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for a protective order regarding Requests for Admission and for the corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 served on them by Defendant Southern California Equestrian Center, LLC (“SCEC”). Plaintiffs also request the imposition of monetary sanctions against defense counsel in the amount of $5,285. The motion and request for sanctions are disputed. Background On 5/6/24, SCEC propounded 382 requests for admission and the corresponding form interrogatory No. 17.1 (seeking all facts, witnesses, and identification of documents for each response to each request that is not an admission). The discovery was accompanied by an attorney declaration signed by Anthony A. Ferrigno addressing the need for more than 35 requests for admission. By Code, the responses were due 6/6/24. On 5/31/24, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed defense counsel to request an extension of time to respond. Defense counsel did not reply to the email. 202200571586CUBC: So Cal Equestrian vs. Lowe On 6/3/24, Plaintiffs’ counsel again emailed defense counsel on 6/3/24, requesting an extension of time to respond. Defense counsel refused, claiming he needed his clients’ permission. Plaintiffs’ counsel disputed that contention. On 6/4/24, defense counsel agreed to grant an extension of two court days (making the responses due Monday 6/10/24) conditioned on Plaintiffs agreeing to concessions in discovery. The same day, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding a motion for a protective order on the grounds that the discovery is duplicative and excessive. On 6/5/24, Plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to reach defense counsel by telephone, without success. Defense counsel later advised that he was unwilling to meet and confer on the phone. On 6/6/24, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion. Discussion A party may be served with 35 requests for admission that do not admit the genuineness of a document, unless the propounding party serves a declaration stating facts demonstrating the necessity for the additional requests in which case there is not express limit. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.030, 2033.040.) A party on whom requests for admission have been served may move for a protective order on the ground that the order is necessary to avoid unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden or expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.080, § 2033.040.) On such a motion, the propounding party bears the burden to justify the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040, subd. (b).) The court is aware of the history of this case. The matter has been vigorously litigated. That’s fine. But is it a misuse of the discovery process to use “a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden or expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (b).) Whatever may be said about the complexities of this case, it does not warrant requests exceeding ten-times the presumed threshold of 35. SCEC has failed to carry the burden to demonstrate otherwise. SCEC says that Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to meet and confer. That contention is contradicted by the record. The opposite is true. Counsel for Plaintiffs made several good faith attempts to resolve this dispute. Those attempts were not responded to in kind. Indeed, the strongest evidence that these discovery requests were intended to cause unwarranted annoyance and undue burden is SCEC’s counsel’s refusal to meet and confer in good faith and to extend a reasonable and expected professional courtesy of extending the time to answer an enormous set of discovery requests. A trial date has not yet been set; the discovery cut-off is not on the horizon. The court finds the requests for admission and corresponding form interrogatories were served for the improper purpose of imposing unwarranted annoyance and undue burden. Moreover, 202200571586CUBC: So Cal Equestrian vs. Lowe the court finds that SCEC has not demonstrated that requests for admission in excess of 35 were justified. However, the court declines to strike the entire set of requests for admission. A protective order is not intended to be punitive. (Padron v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1246, 1259.) Rather, the court makes this order: (1) Within five court days, counsel for SCEC shall, in writing, designate to Plaintiff’s counsel 35 requests for admission from the contested set; (2) Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of the designation, extended as allowed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 et seq., as applicable to the form of delivery, to serve a response permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure to each of the designated requests for admission and the corresponding form interrogatory; and (3) Plaintiff shall not be required to respond to any request for admission and its corresponding form interrogatory from the disputed sets except as timely designated by SCEC. It is an abuse of the discovery process to unsuccessfully oppose a motion for protective order without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.080, subd. (d).) SCEC has acted without substantial justification. The request for the imposition of monetary sanctions is granted. SCEC counsel, Anthony A. Ferrigno, shall pay Plaintiffs a monetary sanction of $5,285 within 30 days.

IN RE: RAGULSKY Case Number: 24CV-0204772 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Leslie Lorraine Ragulsky seeks to change her name to Leslie Lorraine Armenta. No proof of publication has been submitted. The Court requires a Certificate of Publication from the publishing newspaper before the Petition may be granted. If the Certificate of Publication is provided, the Court intends to grant the Petition, vacate all future dates, and close the file.