Crowded Street Holdings, Llc D/B/A Bridges Bros Movers V. Commercial Sales & Marketing, Inc., D/B/A Csm Truck Sales

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission 07/09/2024 in Department 21 Motion to Quash Specially Appearing Non-Party Amy Levan's Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Service of Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Judgment Debtor 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 GRANTS nonparty Amy LeVan’s motion to quash Plaintiff Sherwood Valley Homeowners Association’s service of its motion to amend judgment to add judgment debtors. Although the law regarding what type of service is required for Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment is not entirely clear (compare Favila v. Pasquarella (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 934, 947, fn. 10, with Reliant Life Shares, LLC v. Cooper (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 14, 58), the Court concludes that for the purposes of Plaintiff’s motion to amend the more “suitable process…most conformable to the spirit of [the Code of Civil Procedure]” (see Code of Civil Procedure §187) is that Plaintiff be required to serve LeVan with its moving papers in the same manner as required for service of summons. As a result, the Court finds Plaintiff’s service of its motion to amend the judgment by mail on LeVan insufficient and quashes such service. 201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission Based on the above, the Court continues the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment, presently set for July 11, 2024, to August 15, 2024, to give Plaintiff sufficient time to effect service of its moving papers on LeVan in the manner required for service of process at least 16 court days prior to the August 15, 2024 hearing, and to file and serve proof of such service with the Court. The motion to amend the judgment is already fully briefed, and no additional briefing is authorized at this time. Analysis The Association’s motion to amend the judgment to add additional judgment debtors is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §187. Section 187 provides that: “When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.” Because a motion to amend a judgment to add alter egos is not a “proceeding …specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute,” the Court may employ “any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.” Stated differently, the procedural rules governing the Association’s motion to amend the judgment are not specified by statute, and therefore the Court must determine what procedural rules are appropriate (“most conformable to the spirit of this Code”) for such a proceeding. The Court notes that a motion to amend the judgment to add an alter ego as a judgment debtor is viewed by the courts as an equitable procedure pursuant to which the Court is not adding a new defendant, but merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant. (See Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 419.) However, LeVan persuasively argues that unless and until the Court adjudicates that LeVan is an alter ego of the judgment debtor, New Mission, LLC (“New Mission”), LeVan is legally a separate person from New Mission and therefore the Court needs to acquire jurisdiction over LeVan in an appropriate manner to rule on the merits of the alter ego allegations. There is appellate authority standing for the procedure that a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to §187 must be a noticed motion. (See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Weinberg (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1, 9 [Stating that: “Code of Civil Procedure section 187 contemplates a noticed motion.”].) However, there appears to be a dearth of authority directly addressing the issue of how a nonparty alleged alter ego should be served with notice of such a motion and the moving papers. There is authority suggesting – without explicitly holding –that the Association’s moving papers in support of the motion should have been personally served on LeVan, because such service is in the spirit of the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure regarding initiating a lawsuit against 201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission a party. For example, the 2nd District Court of Appeal stated the following with respect to service of a motion to amend a judgment on the person allegedly the alter ego of the judgment debtor: “As discussed, the Estate personally served the motion to amend on Pasquarella, at the time no longer a party in the Get Flipped litigation, and not her counsel of record in the Moofly Productions litigation—a procedure that was entirely proper, although perhaps not a model of professional courtesy. (Cf. §§ 415.10 [requiring personal service of papers initiating a lawsuit], 684.020, subd. (a) [requiring postjudgment papers be served on postjudgment debtor, not debtor's counsel, absent a request on file with the court].) (Pasquarella was also served as the registered agent for judgment debtor Moofly Productions.)” (Favila v. Pasquarella (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 934, 947, fn. 10.) There is 2nd District Court of Appeal authority suggesting that service of a motion to amend judgment is affected by the presence or lack thereof of evidence regarding alter ego status. “As Ms. Cainong necessarily concedes, the service at issue here is not the service of a summons and complaint, and she offers no authority for her contention that the motion to amend the judgment was ‘akin’ to service of a summons and complaint. In the absence of any such authority, we see no reason to treat Cooper's motion to amend the judgment as subject to different procedural requirements than any other motion. Particularly is this so given the court's findings in phase one of the trial that the evidence established Michaels used the three trusts as extensions of himself.” (emphasis added) (Reliant Life Shares, LLC v. Cooper (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 14, 58 [“Reliant”].) Here, unlike in Reliant, the Association fails to submit any evidence that this Court made any findings at or prior to trial that any of the third parties the Association seeks to add to the judgment “used [New Mission] as extensions of [themselves].” The very limited case law on the issue does not provide a clear answer as to what kind of service of the present motion to amend the judgment is required with respect to LeVan. The Court adopts the more conservative approach approved of in Favila v. Pasquarella, and requires the Association to serve LeVan personally with the moving papers, as this is more likely to avoid potential jurisdictional issues with any amended judgment against LeVan. The Court will require the Association to serve LeVan with its moving papers in the same manner as required for service of process. In her Reply Brief, LeVan argues that Court lacks the discretion to continue the hearing because it does not presently have jurisdiction over the controversy between the parties. The Court rejects LeVan’s argument because, inter alia, in her May 16, 2024 ex parte application LeVan previously requested an order continuing the hearing on the Association’s motion to amend the judgment, which request was granted in part, and therefore she will not be heard to argue that the Court lacks either the jurisdiction or power to continue the hearing. 201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission The hearing on the Association’s motion to amend the judgment is presently set for July 11, 2024. The Court will continue the hearing on the motion for approximately five weeks to August 15, 2024, to give the Association sufficient time to effect service of its moving papers on LeVan in the manner required for service of process at least 16 court days prior to the August 15, 2024 hearing, and to file and serve proof of such service. The Court does not authorize any additional briefing on the motion for leave to amend, as the matter has already been fully briefed.

22CV-02837 LVNV Funding, LLC v. Michelle Reed Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal-Notice of Settlement Appearance required to address whether case can be dismissed. A Notice of Settlement of Entire Action was filed on December 7, 2022, stating that a dismissal would be filed by April 14, 2024. No request for dismissal has been filed. (See Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1385(c).)

MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER by COACHELLA VALLEY PSC1902678 COACHELLA VALLEY COLLECTION COLLECTION VS HART SERVICE Tentative Ruling: The Motion of Plaintiff Coachella Valley Collection Service for an Assignment Order pursuant to C.C.P. §708.510 is GRANTED. Judgment debtor, Sara Lynn Hart, shall forthwith assign to judgment creditor, Coachella Valley Collection Service, judgment debtor’s rights to twenty-five percent of any monies due from any insurance broker, production agency or insurance company licensed to do business in the State of California. Judgment debtor is restrained from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right to payment sought.

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.

23CV-03426 Discover Bank v. William Arteaga Court Trial Appearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Ex Parte Matters Hon. Brian L. McCabe Courtroom 8 627 W. 21st Street, Merced Wednesday, July 10, 2024 1:15 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements. Case No. Title / Description There are no Ex Parte Matters Scheduled SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Ex Parte Matters Judge Pro Tem Peter MacLaren Courtroom 9 627 W. 21st Street, Merced Wednesday, July 10, 2024 1:15 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements. Case No. Title / Description There are no Ex Parte matters scheduled. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Ex Parte Matters Hon. Jennifer O. Trimble Courtroom 12 1159 G Street, Los Banos Wednesday, July 10, 2024 1:15 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements. Case No. Title / Description There are no Ex Parte matters scheduled. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Limited Civil Long Cause Court Trials Judge Pro Tem Peter MacLaren Courtroom 9 627 W. 21st Street, Merced Wednesday, July 10, 2024 1:30 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements. Case No. Title / Description There are no cases set for hearing. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Mandatory Settlement Conference Hon. Brian L. McCabe Courtroom 8 627 W. 21st Street, Merced Wednesday, July 10, 2024 1:30 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements. Case No. Title / Description

Re: TD Bank, N.A. v. Singh Superior Court Case No. 21CECG01521 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 (Dept. 503) Motion: by plaintiff for Judgment on the Pleadings Tentative Ruling: To continue the motion to Thursday, August 15, 2024, at 3:30 p.m., in Department 503, in order to allow the parties to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference, as required. If this resolves the issues, plaintiff’s counsel shall call the court to take the motions off calendar. If it does not resolve the issues, plaintiff’s counsel shall file a declaration, on or before Thursday, August 8, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., stating the efforts made. Explanation: Plaintiff did not satisfy the requirement to meet and confer prior to filing the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Code of Civil Procedure section 439 makes it very clear that meet and confer must be conducted in person, by telephone, or by video conference prior to filing the motion. While the parties may utilize written correspondence to help supplement the meet and confer process, the moving party is not excused from the requirement to do so in person, by telephone, or by video conference, unless it shows that the defendant failed to respond to the meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(3)(B).) The evidence did not show a bad faith refusal to meet and confer on defendant’s part that would excuse plaintiff from complying with the statute. The parties must engage in good faith meet and confer, in person, by telephone, or by video conference, as set forth in the statute. The court’s normal practice in such instances is to take the motion off calendar, subject to being re-calendared once the parties have met and conferred. However, given the extreme congestion in the court’s calendar currently, the court will instead continue the hearing to allow the parties to meet and confer, and only if efforts are unsuccessful will it rule on the merits. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Tentative Ruling Issued By: jyh on 7/8/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 15. PLAINTIFF VANESA O'HANLON's Application And Hearing For Right To Attach Order And Writ Of Attachment. Continued to July 11, 2024, on the court's motion. =(302/RBU)