Blonda, Diyoka-Saleh V. Park City Communities Housing Choice Voucher

Case Number: 23NWCV02507 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: C DEL CID v. FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. CASE NO.: 23NWCV02507 HEARING: 07/18/24 ADD ON Plaintiff IDALIA ESPINOZA DEL CIDs Motion to Set Aside Dismissal under CCP §473(b) is DENIED without prejudice . Moving Party to give notice. No Opposition filed as of July 15, 2024. This premises liability action was filed by Plaintiff on August 7, 2023. On March 26, 2024, Plaintiffs Complaint was dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiffs Counsels failure to appear for a Case Management Conference and OSC Re: Dismissal of the Entire Action for Plaintiffs Failure to Appear on 02/27/2024. (See 03/26/24 M.O.) Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal under CCP §473(b). On June 13, 2024, this matter was CONTINUED to July 11, 2024 due to Plaintiffs failure to attach a copy of a proposed pleading or amended complaint as required by CCP §473(b). Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended Motion. The Amended Motion filed on June 17, 2024 still does not have attached to it a proposed pleading or a copy of Plaintiffs proposed amended complaint. The Court notes that Exhibit B to the Motion does not state that it is a Proposed First Amended Complaint. Consequently, at the hearing on July 11, 2024, the Court issued the following Order: At the hearing, Plaintiff requested, and Defendant did not oppose, a brief continuance to lodge a First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to lodge a First Amended Complaint by July 15, 2024. The hearing is CONTINUED to July 18, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C. If lodged by July 15, 2024, the First Amended Complaint will be deemed filed on July 18, 2024. (Order, 07/11/24) As of July 16, 2024, no First Amended Complaint has been filed/lodged with this Court. The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted &. (emphasis added.) (CCP §473(b).) The Motion is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with the express terms of CCP §473(b). The Motion is DENIED without prejudice due to Plaintiffs failure to attach a copy of a pleading proposed to be filed therein as required by CCP §473(b). The terms of the code are mandatory; compliance is not optional.

22CV014959: GADALLAH, et al. vs ALTA BATES MEDICAL CENTER, et al. 07/15/2024 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Carrie M Duffy, DO (Defendant) + in Department 19 Tentative Ruling - 07/12/2024 Joscelyn Jones The Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Carrie M Duffy, DO (Defendant) + scheduled for 06/12/2024 is continued to 07/17/2024 at 03:00 PM in Department 19 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse . The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Christine Lee and Carrie Duffy is CONTINUED to July 17, 2024 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 19, on the Court's own motion.

Case Number: 23SMCV00851 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: I Please call the courtroom after 8 am to obtain a copy of the courts tentative ruling.

TENTATIVE RULING NOTICE Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department and Case Number must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To attend the remote hearing with Judge Kronlund in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows: Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 Tentative Ruling Plaintiff's motion for Preliminary Injunction is Denied. CCP Section 527. Plaintiff's motion is untimely as he did not provide at least 16 court days' service of the motion as required. CCP Section 1005(b). Nor did Plaintiff file the Reply at least 5 court days prior to the hearing, assuming he had timely filed his motion. Id. The form of the notice of the motion to Defense was improper by way of a sentence at the bottom of an e-mail. CRC 3.1300(b). The Plaintiff appears to seek a Writ of Mandate from this Court, which is improper as this Court is of the same level, trial court level, as the two courts which issued the DVRO and the CPO against Plaintiff. Only a higher court has authority to review a trial court's Orders- not another trial court. To stay or vacate the DVRO and CPO, Plaintiff needs to seek relief at the proper Appellate Court. That would be by filing a timely Writ or Appeal, as the case may be. Even if all of the above fatal problems didn't exist, there are more problems with Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, as it is extremely unlikely he will prevail on the merits of his case. This is because two separate courts, Criminal and Family, have already found the facts and circumstances underlying the restraining orders to have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. This necessarily means, Plaintiff isn't able to prevail as he can't meet his burden of proof. Additionally, Plaintiff can't prove he will suffer greater interim harm compared to the Defendants if the injunction is denied, under these circumstances where Plaintiff was charged with a criminal case against one of the Defendants, and two restraining orders in two different courts were issued against Plaintiff, based on the underlying conduct which is the basis of Plaintiff's complaint. Multiple police reports were generated with at least two different law enforcement agencies, with allegations by Defendants against Plaintiff, of which one or more resulted in criminal charges being filed and two restraining orders in two different courts being granted. This shows that the balance of harm favors Defendants in this case. The Defendants exercised their Constitutional rights and litigation rights by generating police reports and seeking redress through the courts in which they obtained valid restraining orders. Finally, Plaintiff is not being prevented from pursuing his litigation by the denial of this injunction. Barbara A. Kronlund

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.

Case Number: 22LBCV00894 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: S27 1. Background Facts Plaintiff, Claire Stanford filed this action against Defendants, The Palisades Association, Inc., Long Beach Home Solutions, Inc., Boris Bogomolny, and Renee Bogomolny for damages arising out of a fall down a staircase at her apartment complex. 2. Motion for New Trial a. Trial This case was tried to a jury from 4/16/24 to 4/22/24. At the conclusion of the trial, Plaintiff made a motion for a mistrial, which was denied. The jury found in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. On 5/13/24, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. b. Grounds for Motion Plaintiff moves for a new trial based on: (1) Irregularity in the proceedings of the Court (CCP § 657(1)); (2) Irregularity in the proceedings of the jury (CCP § 657(1)); (3) Irregularity in the proceedings caused by (adverse party) (CCP § 657(1)); (4) Improper orders of the Court (CCP § 657(1)); (5) Abuse of discretion by the Court (CCP § 657(1)); (6) Accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against (CCP § 657(3)); and (7) Error in law occurring at the trial and objected to by the moving party (CCP § 657(7) Substantively, Plaintiff argues a new trial is necessary because: (1) The Court did not allow her to demonstrate how she fell; (2) The Court did not allow Plaintiffs expert to use demonstrative evidence to show the severity of the condition on which she fell; and (3) The Court did not allow Plaintiff to submit testimony showing the reasonableness of her medical bills. c. Initial Note While Plaintiffs notice of motion indicates she is moving for a new trial on seven delineated grounds, her points and authorities are not clear concerning what ground she is moving on. §III(A) of her brief purports to brief irregularities in the proceedings under §657(1). Her very short argument thereafter incorporates other aspects of §657(1). The Court notes that the full text of §657(1) provides for a new trial when there is: Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial. The Court will do its best to rule on the motion based on all of the asserted grounds, but is doing so without the benefit of meaningful briefing from Plaintiff concerning which grounds she contends support which substantive argument in her moving papers. d. Law Governing Motion for New Trial Under §657(1) A new trial may be granted for: 1. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial. CCP §657(1). As will be seen, irregularity is broadly interpreted to encompass many forms of misconduct and error that would also be ground for mistrial or reversal on appeal. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court: This phrase refers to conduct other than orders and rulings and reaches matters that may have to be proved by affidavit rather than by exceptions on the record during trial. It includes personal misconduct by the trial judge or any departure by the court from the due and orderly method of disposition of an action by which the substantial rights of a party have been materially affected. Montoya v. Barragan (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1226, 1229-1230. CCP § 657(1) also authorizes new trials based on any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial. CCP § 657(1). Evidentiary rulings by which relevant evidence was erroneously excluded (or conversely, irrelevant evidence erroneously admitted) may be ground for a new trial if prejudicial to the moving party's right to a fair trial. Marriage of Carlsson (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 281, 294. This may include the erroneous exclusion of expert testimony. People ex rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Clauser/Wells Partnership (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1084-1086. e. Demonstrative Evidence Plaintiffs first argument is that the Court erred in refusing to permit her expert to use demonstrative evidence to show the severity of the condition on which she fell. Plaintiff contends she offered to present the dog, the leash, and the laundry basket for the purpose of showing the weight of each object and to show she could not have been tripped by the leash, which was retractable. Plaintiff cites various cases from more than fifty years ago that collectively establish the trial court has the discretion to permit introduction of demonstrative evidence when it will clarify a witnesss testimony. As an initial note, Defendants correctly establish, in their opposition, that Plaintiff failed to provide evidence sufficient to support her position in this regard. The sole evidence is her attorneys declaration, which conclusively states that she was not allowed to introduce this evidence. Counsel does not state whether and when the evidence was proffered, whether it was proffered in a procedurally proper manner, or what ruling the Court made on any such proffer. While Defendants address this issue in opposition, Plaintiff fails to address it in reply, effectively conceding the deficiency of the moving papers. Even if the Court were to find the evidence sufficient, the Court finds any ruling it made in this regard was correct. Evidence Code §352 permits the Court to exclude any evidence that would be more prejudicial than probative. Permitting a plaintiff to bring a dog into a courtroom would be highly disruptive and unusual. Notably, Plaintiff failed to show that she could not simply testify as to the weight of the dog, the weight of the laundry basket, and the retractable quality of the leash, and that this would not be sufficient for the jury to deliberate on the issue. f. Dangerousness of Stairs Plaintiffs next argument is that the Court erred in refusing her to introduce demonstrative evidence showing the dangerousness of the stairs. Specifically, she contends the Court refused to permit her expert to write the measurements of each individual stair on the photo of the stairs, which would have shown the substantial deviations from the building code. Plaintiffs second argument suffers from the same evidentiary deficiency as her first argument. She fails to show that she attempted to introduce this evidence, how she attempted to do so, or what ruling was made concerning this evidence. Additionally, the Court finds Plaintiff was welcome to introduce testimony about any deviations from the building code, and Plaintiff failed to show any order precluding her from writing this testimony on a photograph was not prejudicial. g. Reasonableness of Medical Bills Plaintiffs third argument is that the Court erred in refusing to permit her expert, Dr. Ghodadra, to testify concerning the reasonableness of her medical bills. Plaintiff argues, in her moving papers, that this error was prejudicial because she was not allowed to show the severity of her damages or the necessity of her treatment. This argument fails for the same reason stated above; again, Plaintiff did not provide any evidence showing what testimony she attempted to introduce, how she attempted to do so, or what court order was issued precluding her from doing so. Additionally, the jury verdict was rendered based on a finding that there was no dangerous condition, and therefore any evidence of medical damages was not relevant to the verdict. Plaintiff, in reply, argues this evidence was necessary for credibility reasons. She did not make this argument in her moving papers, and cannot raise it for the first time in reply. h. Conclusion Plaintiffs motion for a new trial is denied on both procedural and also substantive grounds, as discussed fully above. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org . If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar . If a party submits on the tentative, the partys email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.

23CV047447: OCHOA vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 07/17/2024 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. formerly known as VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC. (Defendant) in Department 18 Tentative Ruling - 07/16/2024 Patrick McKinney The Motion to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. formerly known as VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC. on 07/01/2024 is Dropped. This Second Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission for attorney Michael Brown is DROPPED. This appears to be a duplicate copy of the same motion.

23CV025950: PRIM vs AUTOCAR, LLC, et al. 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum for Production of Record of Jen Tellier, Psy.D. RE Plaintiff Damian Prim; filed by Damian Prim (Plaintiff) in Department 24 Tentative Ruling - 07/15/2024 Rebekah Evenson The Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum for the Disclosure of the Mental Healthcare Records of Plaintiff Damian Prim filed by Damian Prim on 05/10/2024 is Dropped. The hearing in this matter is DROPPED pursuant to the stipulations of counsel on 7/11/24.