Credit Corp Solutions Inc. Vs. Benito Escobedo

Case Number: 24STCV04091 Hearing Date: July 29, 2024 Dept: 71 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 71 TENTATIVE RULING THE GRAY CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, vs. GRAFF LOGISTICS LLC, et al. Case No.: 24STCV04091 Hearing Date: July 29, 2024 Plaintiff The Gray Casualty & Surety Companys Request for Default Judgment Having considered all documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows: Background On February 20, 2024, The Gray Casualty & Surety Company (Plaintiff) filed its initial Complaint against Defendants Graff Logistics LLC and Armine Darebidyan aka Darbidyan. On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Graff Logistics LLC and Edgar Elizarov for goods and services sold and delivered, account stated, open book account, and breach of written contract. On July 15, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Graff Logistics LLC from the operative first amended complaint. On July 10, 2024, the clerk entered default against Defendant Edgar Elizarov. On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Request for Court Judgment to be heard on July 29, 2024. Partys Request Plaintiff requests the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant Edgar Elizarov and award Plaintiff $73,819.88 consisting of $62,112.50 as the demand of the first amended complaint, $9,070.13 in prejudgment interest, $2,132.25 in attorneys fees, and $505.00 in costs. Discussion Plaintiff submitted a completed default judgment packet, with all applicable attachments. The Court finds sufficient evidence to justify the requested award and grants Plaintiffs request in full. Conclusion The application for default judgment filed on July 18, 2024, is granted. Judgment of $73,819.88 is entered against Defendant Edgar Elizarov. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Dated: July _____, 2024 Hon. Daniel M. Crowley Judge of the Superior Court

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Monday, July 22, 2024, Line 6. DEFENDANT HENRY WYKOWSKI, AN INDIVIDUAL AND WYKOWSKI & WOOD, LLP's DEMURRER to 1ST Amended COMPLAINT. Overruled. (The Court's complete tentative ruling has been emailed to the parties.) For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/CK)

23CV048738: STANLEY, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC 07/24/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS OF AUTHORITIES; filed by General Motors, LLC (Defendant) in Department 20 Tentative Ruling - 07/23/2024 Karin Schwartz The Hearing on Motion to Strike GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS OF AUTHORITIES; filed by General Motors, LLC (Defendant) scheduled for 06/27/2024 is continued to 07/25/2024 at 03:00 PM in Department 20 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse . The parties are advised that the tentative ruling for the hearing on 7/25/24 may be posted late. HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

23CV055586: TAJIRIAN vs AVIV CONSTRUCTION, INC, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by Aviv Construction, Inc (Defendant) in Department 17 Tentative Ruling - 07/24/2024 Frank Roesch The Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by Aviv Construction, Inc (Defendant) scheduled for 07/25/2024 is continued to 08/22/2024 at 03:30 PM in Department 17 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse . Defendant Aviv Construction, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is CONTINUED to Thursday August 22, 2024 at 3:30 p.m. in Department 17. Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings was served on Plaintiff Armen Tajirian (“Plaintiff”) on July 18, 2024, which would have deprived Plaintiff of proper notice. Moving and supporting papers are to be served on the opposing party sixteen (16) court days prior to the date set for hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Defendant’s motion filed on July 18, 2024 for a hearing set for July 25, 2024 only provides Plaintiff with four court days notice prior to the hearing and insufficient time to file a timely opposition, which is to be filed nine (9) court days before the hearing date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Defendant is ordered to file and serve an amended notice of motion reflecting the new August 22, 2024 date that will provide Plaintiff with the proper statutorily required time to respond. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court. HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV055586: TAJIRIAN vs AVIV CONSTRUCTION, INC, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by Aviv Construction, Inc (Defendant) in Department 17 BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

This Court issues this tentative ruling on the 2 Discovery Motions set for 7/26/24: Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure section 639, the Court on its own motion finds that there are presently, or have been and continue to be discovery disputes between the parties, that the discovery disputes present exceptional circumstances, specifically, that the discovery disputes are lengthy, or protracted, or present complex issues of law and/or fact, and that it is necessary for the court to appoint a referee to hear and tentatively determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make recommendations hereon. This reference is made for all discovery purposes in the action, subject to the referee making any disclosures required by the Code of Civil Procedure and the California Rules of Court. (See Cal. Civ. Pro. Code §639(a)(5)(c).) Discovery Referee Information: John Conger, Esq. Mckinley, Conger, Jolley, Galarneau 3031 West March Lane, Suite 230 Stockton, CA 95219 (209) 477-8171 jconger@MCJGLAW.COM Amount per hour: $450. In addition, the parties should know that this is a Direct Calendar department that must hear all law and motion as well as trials. At this time the Court does not have the resources to devote to the discovery disputes presented herein to ensure that they are timely and thoroughly considered.

CV-24-003735 – ENRIQUEZ, HECTOR vs SPRUELL, JAMIKA – Defendant’s Motion for leave to File-Cross-Complaint - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion for leave to file her cross-complaint. Defendant is ordered to file a copy of the proposed cross-complaint (attached as Exhibit 1 to the 6/27/24 Declaration of Megan D. Johnson) within five court days. The cross-complaint shall be served by August 30, 2024. Defendant is further ordered to submit a proposed order that comports with this ruling within five court days. Due to the interruption of telephone service as a result of an outage, any party requesting a hearing must make the request via email to the court clerk. If V-Court is not available and an in-person appearance is not possible, appearance must be via Zoom. Sign-up information for Zoom will be available on the court’s website.

Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear in person or remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department and Case Number must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To attend the hearing remotely in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 TENTATIVE RULING - On its own motion, the Court continues this Demurrer to October 9, 20024 at 9:00 A.M. in Department 10D. Court will post a Tentative Ruling pursuant to the Court's Tentative Ruling procedure as set forth in the Local Rules. The Court also continues the Further Case Management Conference and Court's OSC to October 9, 2024 at 9:00 A.M. in Department 10D. No oral argument will be allowed as to this continuance. Barbara A. Kronllund

HG18911793: Christiansen VS Tesla Inc 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss filed by Tesla Inc (Defendant) + in Department 517 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Keith Fong The Motion to Dismiss filed by Eric Estes, Derek Green, Tesla Inc on 04/09/2024 is Granted. Defendants Tesla, Inc., Eric Estes, and Derek Green’s unopposed motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff Marc Christensen (“Plaintiff”) filed this case on July 6, 2018 for breach of contract, general negligence, and fraud against Defendants Tesla, Inc., Eric Estes, and Derek Green (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants move to dismiss this action on the grounds that the matter has not been brought to trial within five years, (see Code Civ. Proc. § 583.310), or in the alternative, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his claims for more than two years (see id. §§ 583.410, 583.420(a)(2), Cal. Rule Ct., rule 3.1340). Despite timely service and notice of the motion to dismiss, there is no opposition on file to Defendants’ motion. Defendant is correct that more than five years have elapsed since Plaintiff filed this action. However, Defendant has not addressed the effect of the temporary stay imposed by Order issued on 6/10/2019 based on the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. According to Defendant, no arbitration took place because Plaintiff never initiated one. Although there is an argument that the stay never went into effect, the Court need not address that issue because Defendants’ second argument is compelling. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420, subdivision (a)(2)(B), a court may dismiss an action for delay in prosecution where the action is not brought to trial within two years after the action is commenced against defendant. The statutory provisions permitting discretionary dismissal when the plaintiff is not diligent in prosecuting the action serve the dual purpose of discouraging stale claims and expediting the administration of justice.” (Trailmobile, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1451, 1455.) At the outset, defendants need show only that the requisite delay has occurred; they need not show prejudice. (Daley v. County of Butte (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 380, 390-391.) Once a defendant has this initial showing, the burden shifts to plaintiff to make some showing of excusable or justifiable delay. (Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 554, 562-563.) Here, the parties stipulated to arbitrate Plaintiff’s claims, and the Court entered an order pursuant to the parties’ agreement on June 10, 2019. During the over five years since that order, Plaintiff never initiated arbitration. Plaintiff has not responded to the instant motion and thus has failed to carry his burden of showing that the lack of activity was excusable. (Trailmobile, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 1456.) The Court, therefore, in exercising its discretion, finds that dismissal under 583.420, subdivision (a)(2)(B), is appropriate. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA HG18911793: Christiansen VS Tesla Inc 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss filed by Tesla Inc (Defendant) + in Department 517 Finally, the Court finds, in the alternative, that dismissal is warranted under section 483.250, subdivision (a)(2). Upon review of the register of actions, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to file the proof of service of summons and complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210, subdivisions (a) and (b). A plaintiff has a mandatory duty to serve a defendant with a summons and complaint within three years after the action has commenced. (Shipley v. Sugita (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 320, 324.) Where service of a complaint is not made within the prescribed time, the complaint may not be further prosecuted, no further action may take place, and the action shall be dismissed by the Court. (C.C.P. § 483.250(a)(2).) Pursuant to the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Defendant shall submit a proposed Judgment to the Court within 5 days of this ruling. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively dispose of the matter forthwith. HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing. BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW. Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA HG18911793: Christiansen VS Tesla Inc 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss filed by Tesla Inc (Defendant) + in Department 517 Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose) Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812