Jason Burke V Lotz Trucking Inc Et Al

22CV02837 JOHN DOE M.C. v. SANTA CRUZ CITY SCHOOLS, et al. SANTA CRUZ CITY SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR STAY The motion is denied. “Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489; see also Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376-79; CCP § 128(a)(3) [“Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers.”].) A trial court’s ruling on a request for stay is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suh (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 253, 257; People ex rel. Harris v. Rizzo (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 921, 951; Bains v. Moores (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 445, 480.) While there are three cases on appeal, there will be no imminent appellate clarity on the AB 218 constitutionality issue. The cases are in the briefing and argument stages and will not likely provide any resolution on this issue within the next six months. The parties’ arguments as to irreparable injury and prejudice tip the scale in favor of plaintiff – he already has an uphill battle at trial due to the fact these acts occurred in the 1980’s; any further delay could result in significant evidentiary issues affecting proof at trial. Defendant SCCS’s Request for Judicial Notice: Exhibits A, T: Order on demurrer, first amended complaint in this case: Denied; the court need not take judicial notice of its own court records. Exhibits B through S, U through Z, A1-A4: Various orders, notices of appeal and appellate dockets for other superior court cases: Denied. Trial court orders have no precedential value. (Bolanos v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 744, 761.) Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice: Exhibits 1-19: Various orders, notices of appeal and appellate dockets for other superior court cases: Denied. Trial court orders have no precedential value. (Bolanos v. Sup. Ct., supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at 761.) Page 1 of 2 Objections to Requests for Judicial Notice: Since the court has denied each party’s RJN, it need not rule on the parties’ objections. 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 2 of 2

Case Number: 24STCV04099 Hearing Date: July 25, 2024 Dept: 19 After consideration of the briefing and evidence filed, the Court GRANTS Tamer B. Botross Application for Pro Hac Vice Application to Appear as Counsel for Malco Enterprises of Nevada, Inc., d/b/a Budget Car And Truck Rental Of Las Vegas. The Court finds compliance with the requirement in California Rules of Court, rule 9.40. The Court signs the proposed order filed on June 14, 2024. Counsel for Defendant Malco Enterprises of Nevada, Inc., d/b/a Budget Car And Truck Rental Of Las Vegas (erroneously named Budget Rent A Car System, Inc.) to give notice.

EDWARDS VS. TYRRELL RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0202609 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of the case. The matter is at issue. The Court designates this matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than December 17, 2024. Defendants have posted jury fees. Plaintiff has not. Plaintiff is granted ten days leave in which to post jury fees. A failure to post jury fees in that time will be deemed a waiver of the right to a jury. The parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to the hearing regarding proposed dates for trial. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

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

23CV-00483 Rachael Perez, et al. v. Abdul Khattak, et al. Case Management Conference Appearance required. Remote appearances are permitted. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to arrange for a remote appearance. Appear to address the status of mediation.

23CV01706 BAKER v. FUTURE MOTION (UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF BAKER’S MOTION TO APPOINT SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST The unopposed motion is granted. Brittany Baker, plaintiff’s surviving spouse, is appointed plaintiff’s successor in interest in this action. 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.

FCS057491 Motion by Plaintiff to Consolidate TENTATIVE RULING As acknowledged in both oppositions filed to this motion, both of which quoted the statute, C.C.P. §403 authorizes a judge to order a case from another court to be transferred to that judge’s court for coordination and consolidation for trial. Once cases are in the same court, that court has discretion under C.C.P. §1048 to consolidate them, for all purposes, or for limited purposes, either for pre-trial only, or trial only. Among the factors the court should consider on a consolidation motion are timeliness of the motion, whether consolidation would cause juror confusion, and whether consolidation would cause any party prejudice. Edmon & Karnow (Weil & Brown), Civil Procedure Before Trial, §12:362, p. 12(I)-70. While this motion is far from timely, no trial has yet been set in either case, and therefore no discovery completion deadlines have passed. Furthermore, if trial is not consolidated, there is a significant risk of inconsistent trier of fact findings on the common issue of proportionate liability when the same plaintiff is alleging similar injuries from different motor vehicle accidents occurring three months apart.

23CV-02260 Seleena Bega v. Jose Corona, et al. Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions 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. Appear to address Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the December 11, 2023, and June 24, 2024, Case Management Conferences, why there is no service of the complaint and summons on the defendants, and whether Plaintiff should be ordered to pay a monetary sanction of $100 for her failures to appear. Failure to appear will result in the Court setting the case for an OSC re: Dismissal as the record indicates a failure to prosecute and diligently prosecute the case.