James M. Wallace, Iii V Erwin Torres

22CV02018 KOEBEL v. PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE OF CLAIM RELATED TO PERSON WITH A DISABILITY The petition for approval of compromise is granted. 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. Page 1 of 16 LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JULY 29, 2024 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

RG19038080: H.A. Marshall Properties LLC VS Moyer 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by Johnstone Moyer (Defendant) + in Department 24 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Rebekah Evenson The Motion for Order DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR COUNSEL TO OBEY SANCTIONS ORDER AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF THE ORDER filed by Broadstone on Broadway Alliance, LLC, Johnstone Moyer on 05/28/2024 is Denied. Defendants’ “Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiffs and their Counsel to Obey Sanctions Order and Imposing Sanctions for Violation of the Order” is DENIED. The Court declines to order additional sanctions based on Plaintiffs’ failure to pay the previously ordered monetary sanctions by February 24, 2024. Defendants are free to enforce the January 24, 2024 sanctions order in the same way it would enforce a monetary judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

Re: Jones v. Hiller Aircraft Corp. Case No. 18CECG04044 Hearing Date: July 24, 2024 (Dept. 403) Motion: Defendant City of Firebaugh’s Motion for Contribution If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Wednesday, July 31, 2024, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 403. Tentative Ruling: To grant defendant City of Firegbaugh’s motion for an order requiring defendant Hiller Aircraft to contribute $4,307,349.06 to the City as payment of its pro rata share of the judgment. Explanation: Under Code of Civil Procedure section 875, subdivision (a), “[w]here a money judgment has been rendered jointly against two or more defendants in a tort action there shall be a right of contribution among them as hereinafter provided.” “Such right of contribution shall be administered in accordance with the principles of equity.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 875, subd. (b). “Such right of contribution may be enforced only after one tortfeasor has, by payment, discharged the joint judgment or has paid more than his pro rata share thereof. It shall be limited to the excess so paid over the pro rata share of the person so paying and in no event shall any tortfeasor be compelled to make contribution beyond his own pro rata share of the entire judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 875, subd. (c).) Here, the City of Firebaugh and Hiller Aircraft were held to be jointly liable for plaintiff’s damages after a jury trial. The City was found to be liable for 25% of plaintiff’s total damages, Hiller was found to be 25% liable, and its employee Steven Palm was found to be 45% liable. The jury originally awarded total damages of $9,28,323.69 against all defendants, but later the court reduced the amount to $8,593,907.51. (Exhibit A to Walls decl.) The City subsequently paid plaintiff $6,602,165.53 to satisfy the judgment. (Exhibit F to Walls decl.) Plaintiff then filed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment as to the City. Therefore, the City has paid more than its pro rata share of the judgment, and it is entitled to contribution from Hiller for the share owed by Hiller. Hiller argues that the City cannot recover any contribution here because the City dismissed its cross-complaint before trial and admitted in open court that it had no pending cross-claims. However, where a defendant has dismissed its cross-complaint voluntarily and without prejudice, it can still seek contribution from the other tortfeasors based on principles of equitable indemnity. (Cobb v. Southern Pac. Co. (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 929, 933–934.) Here the City voluntarily dismissed its cross-complaint against Hiller Aircraft without prejudice before trial. (See Request for Dismissal filed on October 19, 2022.) Nevertheless, it still has the right to seek contribution under principles of equitable indemnity, as set forth in section 875. (Code Civ. Proc., § 875; Cobb, supra, at p. 933-934.) Hiller also argues that the City’s motion is without merit because Hiller has entered into a settlement with plaintiff, and it has sought an order for determination that its settlement is in good faith. Thus, Hiller contends that the City’s claim for indemnity or contribution will be barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. However, the court has already denied Hiller’s request to determine that the settlement with plaintiff was in good faith under section 877.6. The court found that section 877.6 does not apply to the settlement because the settlement was entered into after the verdict and judgment were entered in the case. (April 17, 2024 Order Adopting Tentative Ruling.) Therefore, the fact that Hiller entered into a settlement with plaintiff does not prevent the City from seeking contribution from Hiller here. Hiller also claims that, if it is forced to pay the City for its pro rata share of the judgment, it will be forced into bankruptcy as it has no insurance to cover the judgment, which would prevent plaintiff from recovering anything from it. It also denies that it has $30 million in assets with which to pay the judgment, as the City has asserted. It claims that it is struggling to even pay installments to plaintiff under the settlement. Hiller contends that it would not be equitable to force it into bankruptcy and deny recovery to the plaintiff, so the court should deny the motion for contribution. However, Hiller has not presented any admissible evidence that it has no assets with which to pay the judgment. The declaration of its attorney says nothing about Hiller’s actual assets or cash on hand. He only states that Hiller will file for bankruptcy, not that it has no insurance, cash, or assets to pay the judgment. (Frankenberger decl., ¶ 21.) In any event, even assuming that Hiller is insolvent, its insolvency does not mean that it cannot be ordered to pay contribution to the City of Firebaugh. As discussed above, the City has paid more than its pro rata share of the judgment, so it is presumptively entitled to contribution from Hiller as a co-debtor on the judgment. Hiller should not be “given a pass” on the judgment just because it allegedly does not have the money to pay its share. Nor should the taxpayers of the City of Firebaugh be forced to pay more than their share of the judgment simply because Hiller is allegedly insolvent. It would not be equitable to allow Hiller to escape its duty to pay its share of the judgment that was already paid off by the City. Finally, while Hiller has objected to the amount sought by the City as contribution, it has not explained which specific amounts are incorrect and what the total contribution amount should be. The City’s request for a contribution amount of $4,307,349.06 appears to be correctly calculated, as it is consistent with Hiller’s 70% share of liability based on the jury verdict. Therefore, the court intends to grant the City’s motion for an order requiring Hiller to pay contribution to the City in the amount of $4,307,349.06. 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: JS on 7/23/2024 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)

S-CV-0052547 Avella, Elizabeth M. vs. Mindscape Fermentations LLC NOTE: No party has paid advance jury fees pursuant to CCP § 631. Trial Date & Length: 11/10/25 7 day Jury Trial (Please contact Master Calendar (916) 408-6061 on the business day prior to the scheduled trial date to find courtroom availability.) Civil Trial Conference: 10/31/25 (heard at 8:30 am in Dept. 3) Mandatory Settlement Conference: 10/24/25 (heard at 8:30am; report to Jury Services) NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED UNLESS REQUESTED BY PARTY BY 3PM ON THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO HEARING DATE. REQUESTS FOR APPEARANCE MUST BE FAXED TO THE CIVIL DEPARTMENT, ATTN: CMC CLERK AT (916) 408-6275, AND TO ALL OPPOSING ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES WITHOUT ATTORNEYS BY 3:00 PM THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO THE CASE MANAGEMENT DATE. SEE LOCAL RULE 20.1.7. Per Local Rule 20.1.7 D. If a party or attorney has a conflict with future hearing dates set in the Case Management Conference calendar notes, or opposes the future dates set in the Case Management Conference calendar notes, the party or attorney must appear at the Case Management Conference. That attorney or party must provide at least 7 days’ notice to all other parties in the case of their intent to appear at the Case Management Conference. [Effective 1/1/19] 08/05/2024 CMC in Dept. 6 at 3 PM Calendar Notes

Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Correct the Complaint Filing Date for December 1, 2023 is GRANTED. The court will sign the proposed Amended Order lodged in the court file on March 13, 2024. If a party intends to appear and contest the tentative ruling, they must notify the court by leaving a message at (209) 257-2692, and notify opposing counsel, no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day preceding the hearing. Unless a hearing is requested, this ruling is effective immediately. Neither further notice of the ruling nor a formal order per CRC 3.1312 is required.

The court having read and considered Defendants' Joint Motion to Compel Responses to Defendants' Inspection Demands filed June 17, 2024 rules as follows. Defendants bring their Motion to Inspect pursuant to various Discovery provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure(CCP 2030.010 et seq.) In their Motion Defendants seek information in order to determine the basis for Plaintiff's Complaint filed herein. The court finds that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure cited by Defendants and the Discovery process authorized therein are not supportive of Defendants' purposes in presenting a defense herein. For each of these reasons, Defendants' Motion is DENIED. Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

Motion to Strike Complaint of DEMI HELEN CVPS2401473 PECINA vs RAGNARSSON PECINA by HILMAR RAGNARSSON Tentative Ruling: Hearing continued. Court to provide notice.

GJETLEY VS. SANDOVAL Case Number: 23CV-0203634 Tentative Ruling on Discovery Motions: Defendant Gary Sandoval moves for an order deeming Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One admitted based on a lack of response from Plaintiff. In a separate motion, Defendant moves for an order compelling responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One. The motions were originally noticed for a hearing on June 10, 2024. On June 10, 2024, the Court continued the hearing to today’s date because Plaintiff Lester Gjetley had filed a document titled “Plaintiff Lester Gjetley Response to Motion and Discovery” that included a copy of what appear to be verified responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff was ordered to serve Defendant with these responses. It is unclear if that has occurred. On July 15, 2024, as directed by the Court, Defendant filed a Brief Statement Regarding Outstanding Discovery Issues. This Statement is not supported by evidence. There are procedural and evidentiary defects on both sides of these motions. The Court exercises its discretion to consider the merits of the motions despite these defects. A party has thirty days after service to respond to a Request for Production, Request for Admissions, Form Interrogatories, or Special Interrogatories. See CCP §§ 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a), and 2030.260(a). Not providing a timely response to propounded discovery results in a waiver of objections. CCP §§ 2031.300(a). 2033.280(a), and 2030.290(a). If a party to whom a discovery request is directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding discovery may move for an order compelling a response. CCP §§ 2031.300(b) and 2030.290(c). For Request for Admissions specifically, the party can move for an Order that the Request for Admissions be deemed admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” CCP § 2033.280(c). Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts. Requests for Admissions. Plaintiff filed verified response to Requests for Admissions, Set One on May 28, 2024. Plaintiff was ordered to serve these on Defendant. It is unclear whether Plaintiff did so as there is no proof of service. However, the Court made it clear in its June 10, 2024, tentative ruling that a response to Requests for Admissions, Set One had been filed. Even if these responses may have not been served prior to the June 10, 2024, hearing, they were filed and available in the court file. Defendant presented no argument regarding whether the Requests for Admissions responses were in substantial compliance. As Plaintiff filed verified responses prior to the hearing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for the Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One to be admitted. It is mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction on the party whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion. CCP § 2033.280(c). The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $585 which is comprised of a $60 filing fee and three hours of attorney time at $175 per hour. Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Answer Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Respond to Request for Production. Form Interrogatories. It appears from Defendant’s Statement filed on July 15, 2024 that verified responses were provided as Defendant wrote, “but his verified response to Form Interrogatory 11.0 omits any mention of this suit.” A lack of service of verified responses is what the original motion alleged. If Plaintiff has served verified responses and Defendant deems them to be insufficient, Defendant may file a motion compelling further responses after sufficient meet and confer efforts. In order for the Court to rule on such a motion, the Form Interrogatories and responses would need to be provided to the Court. As it appears that Plaintiff responded to Form Interrogatories, Set One, the Court DENIES this request as moot. If the Court is incorrect and Plaintiff did not serve responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Defendant may raise the issue at the hearing. Special Interrogatories. Verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One were filed by Plaintiff on May 28, 2024. As discussed above regarding the Requests for Admissions, these were in the court file. If Defendant deems the response to be insufficient, Defendant may file a motion compelling further responses after sufficient meet and confer efforts. As Plaintiff responded to Special Interrogatories, Set One, the Court DENIES this request as moot. Request for Production. It appears from Defendant’s Statement that Plaintiff has not formally responded to Request for Production, Set One but did provide some documents. Despite a partial production, Defendant maintains that many records in possession or available to Plaintiff have not been provided. The Court finds good cause for each of the categories listed in Request for Production, Set One. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to the Request for Production. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide a verified response to Request for Production, Set One and produce all responsive records within twenty days of the filing of the Notice of Entry of Order. Sanctions. CCP §§ 2031.300(c) and 2030.290(c) only provide for sanctions when an unsuccessful opposition is made, however, the Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even when no opposition was filed. CRC 3.1348. As it appears that Plaintiff has still not served a verified response to Request for Production, Set One, the Court finds that sanctions are appropriate. The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $410 which is comprised of a $60 filing fee and two hours of attorney time. The third hour requested is not awarded as time to attend the hearing has already been accounted for in Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming Truth of Facts. In the Statement filed by Defendant on July 15, 2024, Defendant requested that Plaintiff be ordered to sit for another deposition at Plaintiff’s expense. This request is not properly before the Court and will not be addressed. Defendant did not provide proposed Orders as required by Local Rule of Court 5.17(D). Defendant is to provide a proposed Order for each motion that is consistent with the Court’s ruling.