Household Credit Services Inc Vs. Bruno Burghard

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Probate Notes 201500465373PRCP: In the Matter of Marie Chantelle Castaneda 07/23/2024 in Department J6 Hearing Re: Annual/Biennial Status Report Due 06/18/24 For future reference, the Court advises that Local Rule 10.02(J)(2) requires that a Notice of Filing of Status Report (local form VN257) be served on those parties entitled to notice and be filed with the court. The status report was filed on 07/05/24. The Court has reviewed the status report. It is complete. No appearance required. The Court Investigator’s report was filed on 07/11/24. The Court has reviewed the report. It is complete. The next biennial status report shall be filed by 06/17/26 and set for a hearing on 07/21/26 at 10:30 AM in Department J6. The clerk shall give notice. _______________________ The Court uses Zoom exclusively for remote appearances in Department J6. For information on the Zoom procedures, and for general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Probate Notes 2024PRTR025336: IN RE OF THE GARY W. JACKSON AND LINDA T. JACKSON TRUST 07/25/2024 in Department J6 Hearing on Petition for Orders Declaring Notice of Revocation ect. The court intends to grant the petition finding that the Notice of Revocation of the Community Trust is invalid and shall have no force or effect; confirm that Gary W. Jackson is the sole trustee of the trust and all sub-trusts, and denies the request for attorney fees and costs as petitioner has not provided and facts as to such request. __________________ The Court uses Zoom exclusively for remote appearances in Department J6. For information on the Zoom procedures, and for general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Probate Notes 202100555793PRCE: In The Matter of Esperanza M. Moore 07/23/2024 in Department J6 Petition Other (PRC) Petition To Determine The Invalidity of A Trust Amendment; Invalidity of Donative Transfer; Financial Elder Abuse; Ownership of Conservatorship Estate Property; And For An Order Directing Respondent To Account for Conservatee's Estate....ect. Discuss status of Settlement Agreement. The clerk shall give notice. _________________ The Court uses Zoom exclusively for remote appearances in Department J6. For information on the Zoom procedures, and for general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 202100555117CUOE: Ivan Ochoa vs. Meggitt Safety Systems Inc 07/24/2024 in Department 43 Hearing on Final Approval The morning calendar in courtroom 43 will normally begin at 8:45. Please arrive for your hearing no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall and Zoom, but parties must both use the same platform if appearing remotely. The court’s equipment is not capable of handling mixed remote appearances. Counsel are expected to cooperate in this regard. Refer to the Courtroom 43 webpage for more information about remote appearances. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:30 a.m. If you wish to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the court day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. For Zoom appearances, you must email the court at Courtroom43@ventura.courts.ca.gov with a simultaneous copy to all other counsel/self-represented parties no later than 3:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. INCLUDE THE PHRASE "ZOOM APPEARANCE ON (DATE OF HEARING)" IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL. You will receive the login information for your appearance in reply to your email. If appearing by Zoom, log into the hearing no later than 8:30 a.m. The Court will transfer you to the meeting room when your matter is called. Additional instructions can be found on the Courtroom 43 webpage. IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW ALL OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS, YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO APPEAR BY ZOOM AT THE HEARING. NO EXCEPTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Coats's secretary, Ms. McIntyre at 805- 477-5894, stating that you submit on the tentative. Or, you may email Courtroom43@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is required but not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 202100555117CUOE: Ivan Ochoa vs. Meggitt Safety Systems Inc Tentative Ruling: Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Class Representative Service Awards, and Attorney Fees is GRANTED. As an initial matter, the Court finds that the material terms of the proposed class action settlement are code-compliant and that the settlement should be entitled to a presumption of being fair, adequate, and reasonable. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769, et seq.; Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.) As to the PAGA settlement, the terms of the proposed settlement fully comply with the procedural requirements of Labor Code, section 2699. Class counsel’s requested attorney fees in the sum of $1,694,869.57 and litigation costs and litigation costs in the sum of $63,779.28 are reasonable. Further, there is good cause for granting the requested Plaintiffs’ enhancement award payments in the total sum of $22,500. Additionally, Phoenix Settlement Administrators is awarded the requested $11,500 for its settlement administration services provided. The proposed order/judgment, which complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.769(h), will be signed on this date and forwarded to the Civil Department for processing, with the caveat that the Court strikes the provision setting a non-appearance case review re: filing of a “final disbursement declaration.” The Court makes the specific findings stated in the proposed order/judgment. Once the judgment is entered, Plaintiffs must ensure that notice of the judgment is provided by the Settlement Administrator to all Class Members who have not opted out. Additionally, pursuant to Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (l)(3), Plaintiffs’ counsel shall give notice of the judgment to the LWDA within 10 days of the entry thereof. Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Probate Notes 202100558557PRWT: In the Matter of James F. Downey 07/25/2024 in Department J6 Court's Order to Show Cause Confirmation of Filing Petition for Final Distribution On 06/15/23 the court ordered a Petition For Final Distribution to be filed and served on or before 05/23/24. The court also set this OSC re Confirmation of Filing Petition for Final Distribution. The Petition for Final Distribution has not been filed as of 07/23/24. The court orders the mandatory appearance of Co-Executors Elizabeth Fehmel and Julie Mankiewicz. The court orders the mandatory appearance of attorney William C. George. __________________ The Court uses Zoom exclusively for remote appearances in Department J6. For information on the Zoom procedures, and for general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Probate Notes 2024PRTR025391: IN RE TJE STEVEN F SCHIFF SEPARATE PROPERTY REVOCABLE TRUST 07/25/2024 in Department J6 Hearing on Petition Petition for Order Confirming Trust Asset The Court intends to deny the petition. There is insufficient evidence that Steven Schiff intended to place Merrill Lynch acct. no. 7BR-47N90 into his trust, as opposed to another account numbered CMAM 220-1423. The same is true of Merrill Lynch acct. no. 5K0-50B80, in addition to the fact that the tax documents appear to show that acct. no. 5K0-50B80 was not owned by the settlor as of 9/18/15. __________________ The Court uses Zoom exclusively for remote appearances in Department J6. For information on the Zoom procedures, and for general information regarding Judge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit: http://www.judgerogerlund.com.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2023CUBC011826: THE BECKER GROUP INC vs SANG OK KANG 07/24/2024 in Department 21 Ex Parte Application for Motion to Set Aside Dismissal The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at 805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Tentative Ruling The Court takes Judicial Notice of its own files and finds: • A Request for Entry of Default was filed by Plaintiff September 27, 2023; • A Case Management Statement was filed by Plaintiff March 12, 2024; • A Notice of Rejection was filed by the Court for a Request for Court Judgment and Judgment by Default as it was missing supporting documents; • The Plaintiff failed to appear at a Case Management Conference and OSC re failure to file Proof of Service on March 22, 2024. Calfornia Rule of Court 3.1206 states: Parties appearing at the ex parte hearing must serve the ex parte application or any written opposition on all other appearing parties at the first reasonable opportunity. Absent exceptional circumstances, no hearing may be conducted unless such service has been made. 2023CUBC011826: THE BECKER GROUP INC vs SANG OK KANG The Court finds no proof of service attached to the motion to vacate the dismissal. Upon compliance with CRC 3.1206, The Dismissal will be vacated.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2023CUPP012207: DONNA LEE vs TRADER JOE'S 07/25/2024 in Department 21 Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal For Relief from Involuntary Dismissal The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at 805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Tentative Ruling The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Donna Lee’s unopposed Motion to Set Aside Dismissal. Plaintiff’s counsel, Leonidas Nicol, establishes through his declaration the inadvertent fault of his office to properly calendar the April 10, 2024, Case Management Conference/Order to Show Cause, resulting in Plaintiff’s failure to appear, and the resulting May 10, 2024, Court’s Order to Show Cause regarding Plaintiff’s failure to appear which resulted in the Court’s involuntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. The Court sets aside the May 10, 2024, dismissal of this action, and orders this case returned to the civil active list. 2023CUPP012207: DONNA LEE vs TRADER JOE'S Analysis Pursuant to the statutory language of CCP section 473, a motion for mandatory relief must be granted if: (i) it is brought within six months of entry of judgment; (ii) it is in proper form; (iii) it is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit of fault; and (iv) the trial court makes no finding that the default was not caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Where the requirements under the mandatory provisions of section 473, subdivision (b) are met, the Court lacks discretion to deny relief. (See Carmel, Ltd. v. Tavoussi (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 393, 399-400.) Under the mandatory provisions of section 473, subdivision (b), “[r]elief is mandatory when a complying affidavit is filed, even if the attorney’s neglect was inexcusable.” (Rodrigues v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1033.) The mandatory relief provision of section 473, subdivision (b), based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault, requires the court, if certain prerequisites are met, to vacate a “default,” a “default judgment,” or a “dismissal.” (English v. IKON Business Solutions, Inc. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.) In this context, the word “dismissal” is construed as having a limited meaning, similar to the term “default judgment.” (Id. at p. 145.) In adding the word “dismissal” to the mandatory provision of section 473, subdivision (b), “the Legislature ‘intended to reach only those dismissals which occur through failure to oppose a dismissal motion—the only dismissals which are procedurally equivalent to a default.’ [Citation.]” (English, at p. 145, italics added.) “The range of attorney conduct for which relief can be granted in the mandatory provision is broader than that in the discretionary provision, and includes ‘inexcusable’ neglect. But the range of adverse litigation results from which relief can be granted is narrower.” (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 616.) “By its express terms, the mandatory relief provision applies only to defaults, default judgments, and dismissals.” (Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1415.)