Rueben Hays Jr Vs. Peter Phillip Lee Jr , Defendant, Et Al

JOHNSON, ET AL VS. PARENT, ETAL Case Number: CVCV21-0197618 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of arbitration. The Court ordered this matter to arbitration on February 5, 2024. Neither side appeared for the prior hearing on May 3, 2024. The Court notes that Substitutions of Attorney have been filed on behalf of Plaintiffs. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to discuss the status of arbitration.

S-CV-0051942 Construct & Maintain Corp vs. Done Right Heating and Air Conditioning ** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouraged Appearance required. Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to Defendant(s): Done Right Heating and Air Conditioning

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIONS FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR GALIPO VS HYUNDAI CVRI2306113 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, MOTOR AMERICA SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY KRISTINA GALIPO, SANTIAGO GALVEZ Tentative Ruling: Discovery in this matter is Stayed, pending the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, which is currently scheduled for August 29, 2024, at 8:30am, D-4. This Motion is continued to August 29, 2024, at 8:30am, D-4.

DATE: 07/19/24 TIME: 1:30 P.M. DEPT: E CASE NO: CIV2202485 PRESIDING: HON. ANDREW SWEET REPORTER: CLERK: PLAINTIFF: LELAND SPELMAN, ET AL vs. DEFENDANT: STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: 1) MOTION — RELIEVE COUNSEL 2) CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 3) MOTION — RELIEVE COUNSEL RULING The following persons are ordered to appear: 1 Merlin Law Group (counsel for Leland Spelman, Linnea Carlson, and Julian Spelman) 2. Leland Spelman, Linnea Carlson, and Julian Spelman All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11. The Zoom appearance information for July, 2024 is as follows: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1605153328?pwd=eUU1 OE9BTG5tWHgrOFNK Mm Vvd2tFQT09 Meeting ID: 160 515 3328 Passcode: 360075 If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling 1-669-254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: marin,.courts.ca.go

Parties, or counsel if represented, are ordered to appear personally or remotely to discuss the status of the case and to set trial dates in Dept. 2. You must notify the court and all other parties that you intend to appear remotely using form RA-010. In addition to providing notice, a Zoom link must be requested no later than one (1) court day before the hearing and shall be submitted to the Court through the Court’s website at https://www.amadorcourt.org/gi-zoomRequestForm.aspx. Parties and counsel are ordered to meet and confer in advance regarding mutually available dates for trial.

20CV01351 CHINA TIANJIU INT’L RESOURCES GRP LTD v. KWAN et al. (UNOPPOSED) DEFENDANT GAN’S MOTION TO FURTHER COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE), AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS The unopposed motion is granted in part. Defendant Zhenging Gan seeks responses to the following discovery from plaintiff: Page 1 of 2 • Form interrogatories, nos. 1.1, 17.1, and 50.1 through 50.6; • Special interrogatories, nos. 1-84, 86-99, 101-102, 104-105, 107-108, 110-111, 113-114, 116-120, 122-123, 125-129, 131-132, 134-135, 137-138, 140-141, 143-147, 149-156;1 • Request for admission (“RFA”), nos. 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 18, 19, 21, 22-25. The discovery was served on 3/6/24. (Korte Declaration, ¶ 3.) The parties agreed to an extension of time and responses were served on 4/17/24. (Korte Decl., ¶ 8.) The responses were deficient and following meet and confer, the parties agreed that plaintiff would provide further responses, with an extension to 6/10/24. No further responses were provided due to plaintiff’s failure to communicate with its former attorney. (Korte Decl., ¶¶ 9-13.) The court orders plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses to the following requests no later than 8/23/24: • Form interrogatories, nos. 1.1, 17.1 (as to RFA nos. 7, 8, 10, 18, 19), and 50.1 through 50.6; • Special interrogatories, nos. 1-84, 86-99, 101-102, 104-105, 107-108, 110-111, 113-114, 116-120, 122-123, 125-129, 131-132, 134-135, 137-138, 140-141, 143-147, and 149-156; • Request for admission, nos. 7, 8, 10, 18, and 19. The court declines to impose monetary sanctions. Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed. 1 Several special interrogatories are included in defendant’s Separate Statement that do not provide reasons for further responses. Those interrogatories have not been included in this list since they are not supported by the Separate Statement. Page 2 of 2

20CV01351 CHINA TIANJIU INT’L RESOURCES GRP LTD v. KWAN et al. (UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED The unopposed motion to be relieved is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to immediately secure successor counsel, since a business entity party cannot proceed in pro per. Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

-