Billy Ross V Aleasha Ross -Non-Trial

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 202100556158CUBT: GI Industries vs. Arakelian Enterprises 07/25/2024 in Department 20 Motion to Stay the Taking of Depositions and Quash The Deposition Notices of Michael Arakelian and Ron Arakelian Jr and for a Protective Order Notice Regarding Courtroom 20 Law & Motion Procedures: The law and motion calendar in Courtroom 20 before Judge Matthew P. Guasco starts between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Ex parte applications will be heard at the same time as matters on the law and motion calendar. Parties appearing by Court Call must check in with the Judicial Assistant by 8:10 a.m. No notice of intent to appear is required. Parties wishing to submit on the tentative decision must so notify the Court by e-mail at Courtroom20@ventura.courts.ca.gov. Do not call in lieu of sending an e-mail. If a party submits on the tentative decision without appearing, but another party appears, the hearing will be conducted in the absence of the non-appearing party. Effective February 13, 2018, all cases assigned to Courtroom 20 are assigned for all purposes (including trial) to Judge Guasco. REMOTE APPEARANCES: Judge Guasco invites attorneys, self-represented parties, and parties to appear remotely via Court Call or Zoom for all law and motion, case management conference, trial setting conferences, and status hearings. You may contact Court Call as follows: www.courtcall.com or call 888-882-6878. It is the Court’s understanding that Court Call will waive its fee as to parties who have obtained a fee waiver from the Court. The Court will not accept any Court Call reservations submitted later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the scheduled hearing. Court Call reservations are not accepted on Court Furlough Days or Court Holidays. Judge Guasco’s instructions and rules, as well as the link, for Zoom appearances are located at http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/covid19/Courtroom20_Zoom-Appearance_Flyer_2022.pdf. PLEASE NOTE: All those appearing by Zoom must follow Judge Guasco’s conduct orders which can be found at http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/Courtroom/C20. The following is the Court’s tentative decision concerning the motion of defendant, Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Athens Enterprises (“Athens”), to stay the taking of depositions an quash the deposition notices of Michael Arakelian and Ron Arakelian, Jr., and for a protective order, in this action by plaintiff, G.I. Industries d/b/a Waste Management (“WM”): For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Athens’s motion: (1) “California law provides parties with expansive discovery rights.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 590.) “Unless otherwise limited” by a court order, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... , if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010.) 202100556158CUBT: GI Industries vs. Arakelian Enterprises (2) Athens brings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410, which provides in pertinent part as follows: “(a) Any party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210) waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the deposition notice was served. “(b) If an objection is made three calendar days before the deposition date, the objecting party shall make personal service of that objection pursuant to Section 1011 on the party who gave notice of the deposition. Any deposition taken after the service of a written objection shall not be used against the objecting party under Section 2025.620 if the party did not attend the deposition and if the court determines that the objection was a valid one. “(c) In addition to serving this written objection, a party may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. The taking of the deposition is stayed pending the determination of this motion.” (3) Athens also moves for a protective order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, which provides in pertinent part as follows: “(a) Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. “(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: (1) That the deposition not be taken at all. ... (5) That the deposition be taken only on certain specified terms and conditions. ... (9) That certain matters not be inquired into. (10) That the scope of the examination be limited to certain matters. ... 202100556158CUBT: GI Industries vs. Arakelian Enterprises (g) If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that the deponent provide or permit the discovery against which protection was sought on those terms and conditions that are just.” (4) Here, Athens objected and has moved for an order staying the taking of the depositions and quashing the deposition notices directed to Micheal Arakelian and Ron Arakelian, Jr., as well as for a protective order. The parties fulfilled their duties to meet and confer in good faith to avoid this motion. The Court finds the parties have a legitimate disagreement about whether the depositions of these two board members and officers of Athens should be deposed. (5) The depositions at issue here clearly involve “apex” corporate officers: Michael Arakelian and Ron Arakelian, Jr. As such, the following sets forth the law governing resolution of the instant motion: “Consistent with these federal decisions, we hold that when a plaintiff seeks to depose a corporate president or other official at the highest level of corporate management, and that official moves for a protective order to prohibit the deposition, the trial court should first determine whether the plaintiff has shown good cause that the official has unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information. If not, as will presumably often be the case in the instance of a large national or international corporation, the trial court should issue the protective order and first require the plaintiff to obtain the necessary discovery through less intrusive methods. These would include interrogatories directed to the high-level official to explore the state of his or her knowledge or involvement in plaintiff's case; the deposition of lower level employees with appropriate knowledge and involvement in the subject matter of the litigation; and the organizational deposition of the corporation itself, which will require the corporation to produce for deposition the most qualified officer or employee to testify on its behalf as to the specified matters to be raised at the deposition. (§ 2025, subd. (d)(6).) Should these avenues be exhausted, and the plaintiff make a colorable showing of good cause that the high-level official possesses necessary information to the case, the trial court may then lift the protective order and allow the deposition to proceed.” (Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1289.) (6) “A protective order prohibiting the deposition of a corporate president may be granted where it is shown the corporate president lacks knowledge or involvement in the litigation, and such deposition is being sought prior to plaintiff's exhaustion of less intrusive means of discovery. Such “high level” (or “apex”) depositions “raise a tremendous potential for discovery abuse and harassment.” (Id., 10 Cal. App.4th at pp. 1287-1288.) Thus, in order to show good cause for the deposition of an apex officer, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the officer has unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information; and (2) that plaintiff has exhausted all less-intrusive avenues of discovery. (7) The Court finds that WM has provided a reasonable factual basis to conclude that board members and officers Micheal Arakelian and Ron Arakelian, Jr. have the requisite personal 202100556158CUBT: GI Industries vs. Arakelian Enterprises knowledge of relevant discoverable information and that WM exhausted less intrusive discovery methods. The depositions appear warranted based upon the direct personal factual information these two board members/officers likely possess concerning the primary material issue in this action: the alleged improper purpose of Athens in approving the below-cost bid which secured the Franchise Agreement for waste disposal services in the City of Thousand Oaks. (8) Athens is not a large national or multi-national corporation. It is a closely-held corporation with only four board members and officers, all of whom are members of the Arakelian family. It is true, as Athens points out, that it has responded to an enormous volume of discovery propounded by WM thus far in this litigation initiated by WM. The Court finds, however, that given the small size of Athens and the concentration of decision making authority in four individuals, two of whom are the deponents, there is more than sufficient good cause for the depositions to get at the root of the bidding decisions and motives at issue in this case. As acknowledged by Athens, the case boils down to whether Athens’s successful bid to the City of Thousand Oaks was (1) below-cost, and (2) if so, whether Athens made the below-cost bid with the prohibited purpose or intent. (Cel-Tech Communications v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 173-175.) That improper intent or purpose is described as a “conscious objective” and “positive desire” to injure competitors or destroy competition. (Ibid.) The proposed deponents have unique and superior personal knowledge of relevant facts concerning the purpose and intent of the bid because they were two of the four members of the board who voted to approve the Thousand Oaks bid after hearing and receiving all information presented to the board. They are the most knowledgeable witnesses to provide the actual intent and purpose of Athens in presenting the bid. (9) The Court finds that, at this juncture of the pre-trial discovery process in this action, WM is not required to propound additional written discovery or take more employee and lesser officer depositions prior to taking the two apex officer/board member depositions at issue. It is sufficient that WM has demonstrated good cause to take these two apex officer/board member depositions. The Court finds that Athens has failed to demonstrate that WM has noticed these two depositions for any improper purpose, including but not limited to unduly burdening, oppressing or harassing the deponents or Athens. (10) For all of the above reasons, the Court DENIES the motion. Counsel for Athens shall serve and file a notice of ruling consistent with the above. A copy of this Tentative Decision (if adopted by the Court as its final ruling without modification) or of the Clerk’s Minutes may be attached to and incorporated by reference in any such notice in lieu of quoting same verbatim in the body of the notice.

METZGER, SR. VS. METZGER, JR., ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0201077 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal (“OSC”) issued on May 28, 2024 by Judge Boeckman, pursuant to Gov’t Code § 68608(b) to Plaintiff and Counsel for failure to cure the defects noted by the Court on February 20, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the OSC. However, proof of service has been filed indicating that the Second Amended Complaint has been served on all parties. The OSC is DISCHARGED. No appearance is necessary on the 8:30 a.m. calendar. The Court confirms today’s 9:00 a.m. review hearing.

IN RE J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC Case Number: 24CV-0205373 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights: Petitioner J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC seeks Court approval to transfer a portion of Payee Brenda Hart’s annuity payment to Petitioner. The Petition seeks to transfer Payee’s structured settlement annuity comprising: A) 60 monthly payments of $328 each, beginning September 1, 2024, and ending August 1, 2029, and B) 1 payment of $75,000 on June 1, 2032. In exchange, the Payee will receive $44,000.00. Insurance Code §10134 et seq sets forth the various requirements for the transfer of a structured settlement. Ins. Code §10136 requires specific language in the form of a disclosure and further provides requirements related to the transfer agreement. A disclosure in compliance with Ins. Code §10136 has been provided as Exhibit B to the Petition. The California Purchase Contract (Exhibit A to Petition) contains the contractual provisions required by Ins. Code §10136. Ins. Code §10138 prohibits certain provisions from being included in the transfer agreement. The California Purchase Contract does not contain any of the provisions expressly prohibited by Ins. Code §10138. The Notice of Hearing was timely served on all interested parties. The procedural requirements have been satisfied. The Court must determine whether the transfer is “fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of his or her dependents.” Ins. Code §10137(a). The Petition lacks a supporting Declaration. The Petition states at page 4, ln. 10-15 that Payee would file a Declaration setting forth Payee’s basis for entering into this transaction, including an explanation why Payee feels it is in their best interest. As of the date of the preparation of this tentative ruling, no such declaration has been filed. This matter is continued to Monday, August 12, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64 for further proceedings on the Petition. The Court also notes that Petitioner did not provide a proposed Order as required by Local Rule of Court 5.17(D). No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

24CV01802 In re: Cervantes, Martin Gaona EVENT: Change of name (minor) There is no proof of service on the biological parents as required by CCP § 1277(f)(1). Unless Petitioner can provide legal authority to the contrary, there is no language in CCP § 1277 indicating termination of parental rights is an exception to the requirement that the biological parents be served. The Court will hear from Petitioner. 1 4-||5. 20CV00578 Holman, Ryan v. County of Butte et al. EVENT: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE On the Court’s motion, Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue is continued to December 4, 2024 at 9:00am. Per CCP § 916, an appeal stays trial proceedings including proceedings which are affected by the judgment. The motion is premature at this stage in light of the appeal filed by Plaintiff. Should the appeal be resolved sooner, Plaintiff may file a request to advance the hearing to an earlier time. MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial is DENIED. After careful consideration of the moving papers, the Court finds no grounds under CCP § 657. The Court will prepare the order.

IN RE: RAGULSKY Case Number: 24CV-0204772 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Leslie Lorraine Ragulsky seeks to change her name to Leslie Lorraine Armenta. No proof of publication has been submitted. The Court requires a Certificate of Publication from the publishing newspaper before the Petition may be granted. If the Certificate of Publication is provided, the Court intends to grant the Petition, vacate all future dates, and close the file.

FL-24-000399 – AGUAYO-MARTINEZ VS ZARAGOZA Respondent’s Request for Order re Discovery—HEARING REQUIRED. After review of the papers and pleadings, the Court finds that a discovery dispute has arisen that appears amenable to resolution without a contested hearing.  Accordingly, the Court is inclined to set an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) under the auspices of a Family Centered Case Resolution Plan, and to stay determination of the present motion and any other pending discovery disputes until completion of the IDC. (Fam. Code, §§ 2450(a), 2451(a)(3); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.83(c)(6)(D),(E).)  The parties shall appear and may be heard on the IDC and, if ordered, to schedule the IDC at the earliest mutual availability of counsel and the IDC officer. The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES. The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sweena Pannu in Department #14:

Parties, and counsel if represented, are ordered to appear personally or remotely for settlement conference and CMC 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.

SIERRA PACIFIC WAGE AND HOUR CASES Case Number: 5235 Tentative Ruling on Case Management Conference: This coordinated proceeding is on calendar for a Case Management Conference. The Court has reviewed the Case Management Conference Statements filed by Plaintiff Smith and Defendant Sierra Pacific Industries. STAY. The McDonald matter remains stayed pending appeal. CLASS NOTICE. The Court appreciates the efforts made by SPI in identifying employees placed at SPI by staffing agencies and is in agreement with SPI’s suggestions regarding the employees at SPI placed by Sonora Employment Agency. The Court invites Plaintiff McDonald to discuss the proposals made by SPI. MOTIONS. There are currently no motions pending in the Smith matter. Pending in McDonald are SPI’s Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Court Order Due to Impossibility that was filed on August 31, 2023 and SPI’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Preservation and Production of Video Camera Footage that was filed on September 1, 2023. Both motions are stayed. TRIAL DATES. McDonald is not presently set for trial. The Court notes that Plaintiffs in Smith filed their Third Amended Complaint on February 28, 2024. SPI filed an Answer on April 2, 2024. As the matter is now at issue, the parties should be ready to discuss a timeline for a Motion for Class Certification. FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE. The Court intends to set a further Case Management Conference and will discuss available dates with counsel.