Lpp Mortgage Ltd V Mary C Donaldson Et Al -Non-Trial

Case Number: 23NWCV02474 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: C STOVALL, ET AL. VS . LANE MARSH REALTY, INC., ET AL. CASE NO .: 23NWCV02474 HEARING : 7/17/24 @ 10:30 A.M. #10 TENTATIVE RULING Defendants demurrer and motion to strike to plaintiffs complaint is CONTINUED to Wednesday, July 24, 2024 at 10:30 A.M. The motion is continued to Wednesday, July 24, 2024 at 10:30 A.M. in Dept. SE-C. Plaintiffs must file their opposition papers with the Court within two court days. Clerk to give notice.

Case Number: 20TRCV00847 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 8 Tentative Ruling ¿ ¿¿ HEARING DATE: July 16, 2024 ¿¿ CASE NUMBER: 20TRCV00847 ¿¿ CASE NAME: Drakk Holdings, LLC v. PSIP SN Vermont LLC, et al. ¿ ¿ MOVING PARTY: Defendant, PSIP SN Vermont, LLC ¿¿ RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Drakk Holdings, LLC ¿¿ TRIAL DATE: November 12, 2024 ¿¿ MOTION:¿ (1) Motion for Summary Judgment (2) DRAKKs objection to PSIPs Notice of Motion to Quash Deposition Ruling ¿ Tentative Rulings: (1) CONTINUED to allow the Zion Bank Deposition to be completed (2) Mooted in light of the Courts determination that, especially given the tentative against Drakk on the MSJ, The Zion Bank depo must go forward per CCP section 437c(h). The birth of counsels child is just cause to need to re-schedule a deposition that counsel was to be taking Discussion This Court requested the parties to discuss the issues identified at the previous hearing involving section 7.2.5 of the PSA. Both sides submitted 5 pages of briefs relating to the construction of Section 7.2.5, and the Court has digested those briefs. The Court has also reviewed Mr. Kenneallys July 3, 2024 Declaration. At the to-be-continued hearing that will occur after the Zion Bank deposition, the Court has these additional thoughts for counsel to consider between now and then. In DRAKKs supplemental opposition brief, it argues that Defendant failed to provide any admissible evidence that the Property complied with the Conditions of Approval regarding the Tentative Parcel Map. The Court is puzzled by this argument because the Final Map, not merely the Tentative, was filed as having been entirely approved nearly a year after the September 26, 2019 tentative approval letter from the County Department of Regional Planning. At the continued hearing, DRAKKs counsel should be prepared to explain how any of the 2019 conditions of approval are material in light of the filing of the Final Parcel Map. Does not the filing of the Final Parcel Map establish local approval? Does not the filing of the Final Map prove compliance with the Subdivision Map Act? Is there any evidence before the Court that Mr. Kenneally raised any allegedly unsatisfied specific condition of approval with DRAKK after Sean became alarmed about PSIPs Notice of the September 25, 2020 Tract Map recording? The Courts tentative ruling to grant the defense MSJ posits that PSIP has carried its initial burden on an MSJ, so the burden is shifted to DRAKK to show a disputed issue that is material to the determination of the motion. As to DRAKKs argument that the closing date should be construed to be at least 15 days after the last of the filing of the Final Map, CC&Rs and Access Agreement, the Court tentatively finds that argument does not raise any triable issue of material fact. The undisputed evidence before the Court is that the Final Parcel Map recorded on September 4, 2020, the CC&Rs recorded on October 1, 2020, and the Access Agreement recorded on October 6, 2020, all of which are more than 15 days before the last extended deadline of October 30, 2020. How does that chronology raise a triable issue of fact as to the closing date? And how does the absence of the map itself in evidence raise a material issue of fact if it is undisputed that it was recorded more than 15 days before the extended closing date? The Court will not take oral argument on these Court questions at the July 16, 2024 continued hearing, but will take argument as to the date to which the hearing should be continued so that the Zion Bank deposition can be taken and (a likely now) expedited transcript can be submitted. The Court tentatively will permit each side to file yet another up to 5-page supplemental brief bearing on what if anything the Court should consider from the Zion Bank testimony, and will take oral argument as to whether the briefs should be filed simultaneously or DRAKK should file first and PSIP be given a later date for its response.

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 15, 2024 line 2. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL is GRANTED. Plaintiff to appear for deposition on July 16, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. Parties may agree on any other mutually acceptable date and inform the Court of their agreement by 9:30 a.m. on July 15, 2024. =(501/HEK) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear.

GLADSTONE, ET AL. VS. MEISSNER, ET AL. Case Number: CVCV21-0197823 This matter is on calendar for review regarding trial setting. The previous trial date was vacated by the Court’s order dated April 18, 2024. The Court previously designated this matter exempt from case disposition time standards. It appears that neither side has posted jury fees, which as previously noted in the Court’s October 23, 2023 Order, is deemed a waiver of the right to a jury. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with available trial dates. J.D. VS. THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF

Case Number: 21STCV18525 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 78 DEPT: 78 HEARING DATE: 07/17/2024 CASE NAME/NUMBER : 21STCV18525 GERARDO PINEDA, et al. vs YANNEL FREGOSO, et al. PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF PENDING ACTION OF A MINOR Jaemmy G. Pineda Cach , Age 9; Jade G. Pineda Cach , Age 5; Gerardo Pineda Cach, Jr. , Age 17. RECOMMENDATION: GRANT TENTATIVE ¿ The Court excuses the personal appearance of Claimant s and the ir guardian ad litem. Counsel may appear by telephone or video conference call. Plaintiff s agreed to settle their claims against Defendant s for the total amount of $ 260,000 , with $ 20,000 being apportioned to Jaemmy G. Pineda Cach ( Jaemmy ) , $20,000 being apportioned to Jade G. Pineda Cach ( Jade ) , and $30,000 being apportioned to Gerardo Pineda Cach, Jr. ( Gerardo ) ( collectively, Claimant s ). If the settlement is approved for Jaemmy , $ 6,600 will be used for attorneys fees . The net balance of $ 13,400 will be deposited into a blocked account. If the settlement is approved for Jade , $ 6,600 will be used for attorneys fees . The net balance of $ 13,400 will be deposited into a blocked account. If the settlement is approved for Gerardo , $ 9 , 9 00 will be used for attorneys fees . The net balance of $ 20 , 1 00 will be deposited into a blocked account. The Court reviews the settlement and finds it fair and reasonable.¿The Court also finds the attorneys fees fair and reasonable, in that counsel has supported the request for 33 % of Claimants settlement. Based on the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The Court sets an OSC Re Proof of Deposit on ___________________in Department 78 of Stanley Mosk Courthouse at 8:30 AM. No appearance required if receipt is filed in advance. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 18, 2024 line 10. PLAINTIFF ISA MUAWIEH MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Hearing Required to address service. Proof of Service on file indicates service at a location that is not Defendant's address of record. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear.

Case Number: 21STCV13812 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 55 I. Tentative Ruling Defendants Motion for Attorneys Fees is GRANTED. II. Background Plaintiffs Mi Young Kim and Yoo S. Kim (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against The Jing Wang (Defendant) related to alleged problems in the property Plaintiff leased from Defendant. Defendant filed a demurrer and Plaintiff failed to file an opposition. The Court therefore sustained the demurrer with 20 days leave to amend on 8/15/23. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint. The Court sustained Defendants demurrer to the FAC with leave to amend but Plaintiffs never filed and served a further amended complaint. Thus, on March 27, 2024, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. On April 12, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion for attorneys fees. No opposition has been filed. III. Analysis In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs. (Civ. Code §1717(a).) Prevailing party includes & a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., §1032(a)(4).) Defendant seeks attorneys fees pursuant to the lease at issue, which contains a provision for awarding attorney's fees to the prevailing party (Section 41). The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs case with prejudice on March 27, 2024, thereby establishing Defendant as the prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure §1032(a)(4). Section 41 states: ln any action or proceeding arising out of this agreement, the prevailing party between Landlord and Tenant shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs from the non-prevailing Landlord or Tenant except as provided in paragraph 35A. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion. The Court finds that Defendant is the prevailing party and is entitled to attorneys fees. [T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the lodestar, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. California courts have consistently held that a computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys fee award. ( PLCM Grp. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal 4th 1084, 1095.) The reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing rate for similar work in the community. ( Ibid. ) The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. (Ibid.) After the lodestar is determined, the court in its discretion may, but is not required to, apply a fee enhancement or multiplier. Defendant claims he has incurred $10,625.50 in attorneys fees and $845.93 in costs to date, with an anticipated additional $3,002.00 in attorneys fees and $21.78 in costs related to this motion for attorneys fees. Defendants counsel John A. S. Baik provides a declaration to support the request. In his declaration, Baik states that he has extensive experience in civil litigation, particularly in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District. His firms customary hourly billing rate is $450.00, but for the current case, it was discounted to $395.00 per hour. He claims these rates are competitive with other Los Angeles area firms handling similar matters (Baik Decl. ¶3.) Baik attaches the lease at issue in this case as Exhibit 1 and explains that Plaintiffs filed the action to compel Defendant to make repairs to the leased property, alleging breach of the lease and other related torts. He clarifies that Plaintiffs did not demand mediation before filing, so Section 35A of the lease, which precludes recovery of attorneys fees without mediation, does not apply to Defendant. (Baik Decl. ¶4.) Baik includes the billing records as Exhibit 2, documenting time spent on the case from March 2023 to present. As the custodian of records, he attests to their accuracy, noting that these records are based on contemporaneous time sheets detailing the date, task, and time expended. (Baik Decl. ¶5.) He reports expending 26.9 hours and $845.93 in costs since March 2023 on various motions, including the demurrer to the original complaint and FAC, and the motion to dismiss. (Baik Decl. ¶6.) Baik anticipates an additional 7.6 hours ($3,002.00) and $21.78 in costs for the motion for attorneys fees, detailing the expected tasks and associated hours. (Baik Decl. ¶7.) Thus, Defendant requests the court award $13,627.50 in attorneys fees and $867.49 in costs against the Plaintiffs, as detailed in his declaration and accompanying exhibits. First, the Court finds the rate to be reasonable and well supported by Baiks declaration. Second, the Court reviews the billing records and also finds the hours spent to be reasonable. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion. The Court also notes that Plaintiffs are represented parties and received adequate notice for this motion. IV. Conclusion Defendants Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED. Defendant may submit a proposed judgment including the fees and the costs set forth in the unopposed memorandum of costs. Defendant must, however, serve the proposed judgment on Plaintiffs.

Case Number: 22STCV33658 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 68 Dept. 68 Date: 7-16-24 Case #: 22STCV33658 Trial Date: 1-9-25 c/f 6-24-24 FURTHER INTERROGATORIES MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Samuel Welch RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Iyana Jackson RELIEF REQUESTED Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiffs were tenants of a single family dwelling at 32270 Saticoy Street, West Hills, and allege unsanitary and/or unsafe conditions on the premises as a result of improper maintenance and upkeep. On October 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Failure to Provide Habitable Dwellings, Breach of Covenant of Right to Quiet Enjoyment and Possession of the Property, Nuisance, and Negligence. Defendants answered the complaint on February 23, 2023. On June 10, 2024, Derrick Robinson filed a Request for Dismissal from the complaint. RULING : Granted. Defendant, Samuel Welch moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set one), numbers 2.6, 12.4, 12.7, and 13.1, from Plaintiff Iyana Jackson. The responses consist of incomplete replies, with assurances of later production upon entry into a protective order, admission of certain unspecified documents or media, or references to other parties and non-parties responsible for the provision of information. The responses are incomplete and fail to respond to all subcategories of the requests. The references to other persons constitutes an improper, factually incomplete answer. ( Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783784 [Answers must be complete and responsive. Thus, it is not proper to answer by stating, See my deposition, See my pleading, or See the financial statement].) The motion is therefore granted. Responding is ordered to serve responses in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210-20310240. No sanctions requested. The court calendar shows nine remaining, scheduled motions to compel further responses through July 22, 2024. The motions appear as a continuation of discovery issues addressed by the court in the 23 motions to compel responses granted on November 22, 2023. The court does not conduct any informal discovery conferences. While the court understands the prior use and perhaps reliance on the IDC system, the court finds the number of items on the court calendar through the next three months presents a potentially inordinate burden. The court reserves the right to set an OSC re: Discovery Referee in lieu of a hearing on any given motion, and may take off any and all motions in lieu of the OSC hearing. The court invites the parties to continue meeting and conferring, including the provision of supplemental responses, when possible. Next set of motions to compel further responses begins with Noah Penn-El beginning on July 2, 2024. Defendant to give notice.