Tangela Johnson V Christin English

FCS057573 Motions for Contempt TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner’s “motions” for contempt are denied. No affidavit of the facts constituting any contempt has been presented to the court. The filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a contempt proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1211(a); Koehler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169; Oil Workers Int’l Union v. Superior Court (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 541.) Page 1 of 1

CORTES ROSAS vs Motion to Compel: Further CVPS2304180 COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED Answers/Responses to Request for SCHOOL DISTRICT Production of Documents Tentative Ruling: Granted. Responding party is ordered to serve verified responses to the Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 15 and 17, without objections within 30 days of service of notice (CCP § 2031.310). Responding party is further ordered to pay attorney’s fees and costs to moving party in the amount of $460.00 within 30 days of service of notice. (CCP 2023.010, 2030.290 (c), 2031.310, and 2033.280.) Prevailing party ordered to give notice pursuant to CCP §1019.5. Plaintiff Yuridia Cortes Rosas, alleges that she was a 10-year old developmentally delayed minor and a fourth grade student at John Kelley Elementary School in the Coachella Valley Unified School District (the “District” or “Defendant”) when she was sexually molested on September 30, 2022 on school premises by a teacher, defendant Marcos Jesus Espinoza (“Espinoza”) while he was intoxicated. Plaintiff alleges the District knew or reasonably should have known that Espinoza was intoxicated and/or had the propensity to sexually molest and harass young girls. On August 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Complaint alleging 1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 2) sexual battery; 3) negligence; 4) negligent supervision; 5) negligent hiring; 6) negligent retention; 7) premises liability. On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff served the District with her first set of requests for production (“RFPs”) and special interrogatories, to which the District timely provided responses. Plaintiff contends the responses remain deficient despite meet and confer efforts, and now moves to compel further responses to RFP nos. 15, 17, 35 and 54 and interrogatory nos. 32, 36, 37, 53-56, 63-69 and for sanctions. The District opposes, arguing that Plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer, the motion is moot as to RFP nos. 35 and 54 and interrogatory nos. 53-56, and the responses are otherwise proper. In the Replies, Plaintiff argues that she complied with the meet and confer requirement, and otherwise reiterates her moving arguments. Request for Production of Documents Where responses to document requests have been timely served but are deemed deficient by the requesting party (e.g., the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general), that party may file a motion compelling further responses. (CCP § 2031.310.) The motion must be served within 45 days after service of a verified response (CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)) and must be accompanied by a declaration showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues informally outside of court. (CCP § 2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).) The motion to compel further responses “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (Guess? Inc.) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Penn.) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established, the responding party has the burden to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98.) Preliminarily, despite Defendant’s contention, Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts were sufficient. Defendant’s letter dated April 9, 2021 promised further information, privilege log and/or supplemental responses on April 12, 2024 and Defendant’s letter dated April 11, 2024 promised supplemental responses on April 19, 2024. No further responses were provided until after the motions were filed. (Declaration of Andrew T. Le, ¶ 9, Exs. 6, 7; see also Declaration of Catherine A. Gayer re interrogatories, ¶ 7; Declaration of Catherine A. Gayer re RFPs, ¶ 13.) RFP nos. 35 and 54 are moot. (Reply, p. 3.) RFP No. 15 This request seeks “all documents pertaining to Plaintiff.” Defendant objected based on overbreadth, vagueness and ambiguity but nevertheless agreed to “produce the cumulative file of the Plaintiff as Exhibit ‘5’, which includes individualized education program for her.” Plaintiff argues that this production is incomplete and evasive because it does not contain any documents relating to Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual molestation against Espinoza and Defendant has not indicated whether it is withholding any documents. Defendant contends that that the only documents that were withheld include attorney-client and work product privileged documents concerning the internal investigation conducted by counsel for the District following Espinoza’s arrest, which documents are identified in a privilege log. As pointed out by Plaintiff, however, the privilege log only addresses documents withheld in response to RFP nos. 13, 14, 16, 33, 74 and 75 – not RFP no. 15. (Gayer Dec., Ex. 2.) Furthermore, Defendant’s response did not include any objection based on attorney-client or work product privileges or note any documents being withheld. GRANTED. RFP No. 17. This request seeks “all documents pertaining to Espinoza.” Defendant responded with objections based on overbreadth, vagueness and ambiguity, attorney-client and work product privileges, and Espinoza’s right to privacy, but nevertheless agreed to produce a job description for Espinoza and Collective Bargaining Agreement. Defendant noted that the documents withheld include Espinoza’s personnel file, investigation report and interviews conducted by defense counsel. Defendant contends that Espinoza’s personnel file has since been produced. (Gayer Dec., ¶¶ 5, 9.) As pointed out by Plaintiff, however, the response has not been supplemented to reflect this fact, and the privilege log does not address RFP no. 17. (See Gayer Dec., Ex. 2.) GRANTED. Sanctions Monetary sanctions are proper under CCP § 2031.310(h) against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion compelling responses to document requests unless the court finds the party acted “with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” The court will award sanctions to Plaintiff, but the amount requested at $2,560 is excessive in light of the simplicity of this motion and the apparent oversight of defense counsel. The amount will be reduced to $460 [$400/hr. plus $60 filing fee].

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Friday, July 26, 2024, Line 11. 1 - DEFENDANT COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION's DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT. Continued to August 8, 2024, on the court's motion. =(302/RCE)

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL ON CROSS-COMPLAINT OF KKW CVRI2304133 VALENCIA VS OLIVARES TRUCKING INC. BY KKW TRUCKING INC. Tentative Ruling: Cross-Complainant KKW Trucking’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Set Aside Dismissal on the Cross-Complaint is granted. Order to Show Cause AGAINST DAVID S. BINDER is set for 9/23/24, as to why sanctions not to exceed $1,500.00 or dismissal should not be imposed for Failure to file request for entry of default of ALL defendants on complaint pursuant to CRC 3.110(g).

LAWSON, ET AL. VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL. Case Number: CVPM21-0197195 This matter is on calendar for review regarding: 1) status of deposit of funds into blocked account for Jonnie Lloyd Lawson Stanley, 2) status of funding the special needs trust for Ravien Lawson, 3) status of Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise for Lou Ella Lawson (the Petition filed April 4, 2024 was stricken per the Court’s Order dated April 5, 2024 because Lou Ella Lawson is not a named party to the Complaint), 4) status of dismissal. Plaintiff has filed a status statement, indicating that additional time is needed to deposit funds and file confirmation of deposit of funds. However, Plaintiff incorrectly states the status regarding Lou Ella Lawson. The Court again notes that the Petition regarding Lou Ella Lawson filed April 4, 2024 was stricken. No Minor’s Compromise has been approved for Lou Ella Lawson. Orders to Deposit Funds have only been executed for Jonnie and Ravien. This matter is continued to Monday, August 26, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64 for review regarding status of the issues noted above. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Tuesday, July 23, 2024, Line 2. PETITIONER JONATHAN HARMS' Motion For Attorneys Fees And Costs. Granted as unopposed. 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)

FCS057573 Motions for Contempt TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner’s “motions” for contempt are denied. No affidavit of the facts constituting any contempt has been presented to the court. The filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a contempt proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1211(a); Koehler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169; Oil Workers Int’l Union v. Superior Court (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 541.) Page 1 of 1

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.