Laurinda Alves -V- New West Prop Print

Case Number: 19SMCV01265 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: I Please call the courtroom after 8 am to receive a copy of the courts tentative decision.

Case Number: 20STCV46605 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: 45 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles ALANNA FOUTZ, an individual, JOHN BASSETT, an individual, MARIA KCKENNA, an individual, JOSH PETKER, an individual, LAUREN MINTZER, an individual, GREG CLARK, and EDWARD BARAN PIECHOCKI, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. AFTON PROPERTIES, INC., a California Corporation; HAROLD HERSKOWITZ, an individual; MY MANAGEMENT CO, INC., a California Corporation; and Does 1 through 80, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 20STCV46605 DEPARTMENT 45 [TENTATIVE] RULING Action Filed: 12/07/2020 [1st Amended Complaint Filed: 09/29/2022] Trial Date: 10/13/2025 Hearing date: 07/09/2024 Moving Party: All Plaintiffs Responding Party: All Defendants Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Awarding Monetary and Terminating Sanctions The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply. Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Awarding Monetary and Terminating Sanctions is DENIED . The parties are ordered to meet and confer over the following: · The production of WhatsApp messages between Harold Herskowitz and Afton Properties, Inc. to determine whether these messages were produced. · The production of all internal emails from Afton Properties, Inc. concerning the subject property and the instant suit. Background This case was commenced on December 7, 2020 when a Complaint was filed by several plaintiffs against three defendants concerning the conditions of apartment units located at 360 N. Orange Grove, Ave., Los Angeles, Ca 90036 (the Premises). The plaintiffs subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on September 29, 2022 that alleged eight causes of action against three defendants: (a) Afton Properties, Inc. (Afton); (b) Harold Herskowitz (Herskowitz); and (c) My Management Co. Inc. (My Management). The FAC alleges that Afton and My Management, who managed the Premises at different points in time, and Herskowitz, who owned the Premises, failed to provide a habitable premises and failed to address critical repairs including a red tagged gas furnace. (FAC, ¶¶12-14.) The motion before the Court now concerns alleged discovery violations. Plaintiffs file a Motion for an Order Awarding Monetary and Terminating Sanctions (the Motion). All Defendants oppose the Motion, and Plaintiffs file a reply. Discussion Legal Standard Although CCP § 2023.030 provides the Court the power to dismiss an action as a sanction for misuse of the discovery process, The sanction of dismissal&against the disobedient party is ordinarily a drastic measure which should be employed with caution. ( Victory Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1158-1159.) Misuse of the discovery process includes the failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (CCP § 2023.010(d) and (g).) Dismissal is a proper sanction to punish the failure to comply with a rule or an order only if the court's authority cannot be vindicated through the imposition of a less severe alternative. ( Rail Services of America v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 323, 331.) Evidence or issue sanctions may be imposed only after parties violated discovery orders compelling further responses, except in exceptional circumstances, including where there was sufficiently egregious misconduct regarding a failure to respond to discovery, or a prior discovery order would be futile. ( New Albertsons, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1426.) Terminating sanctions are authorized where the evidence shows that less severe sanctions will not be successful in compelling discovery responses. ( Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-80.) Analysis In their moving papers, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants failed to provide certain documents during discovery destroyed certain documents in violation of discovery statutes. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to provide: · Emails from Afton concerning the Premises and the instant lawsuit; and · Any communications between Herskowitz and Afton. (Moving Papers, 2:25-28.) Further, Plaintiffs contend that after sending a notice of impending litigation and a Notice of Preservation of Evidence to Defendants in July of 2020, Defendants were on notice to preserve any preserve any evidence. (Moving Papers, 2:18-20.) Upon opposition Defendants counter, arguing that internal emails from Afton were produced. Defendants also argue that Herskowitzs WhatsApp messages were produced as well. Attached to the opposition papers, Defendants provide several email chains and WhatsApp messages. However, there are few internal Afton messages included, and it is unclear who the WhatsApp messages are between. One of the communicators is clearly Herskowitz, but it is unclear who the other party communicating is. (See Declaration of Gregory Kim, hereinafter, Kim Decl., Exh. 1, Bates Nos. 03323 03425.) Defendants argue that the Motion is meritless, the Court disagrees. Although it is clear that at least some of the documents alleged to have been destroyed are accessible and have been produced, after review, it appears that not all documents requested were produced. Attached to Defendants opposition papers there are five pages of internal emails (see Kim Decl., Bates Nos. 02153-02156) from within Ashton, however, the emails date back to 2017, and Plaintiffs point out that Ashton managed the Premises until August of 2020. Plaintiffs contend that they lodged several complaints regarding the habitability of the Premises, Defendants contention that all internal Ashton emails have been produced is unpersuasive. Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that the WhatsApp messages produced are not between Herskowitz and Afton as requested. At this time, it is unclear who one of the parties is in the WhatsApp communications, the documents provided only identify Herskowitz. Therefore, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding (1) the production of WhatsApp messages between Harold Herskowitz and Afton Properties, Inc. to determine whether these messages were produced and (2) t he production of all internal emails from Afton Properties, Inc. concerning the subject property and the instant suit. Conclusion Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Awarding Monetary and Terminating Sanctions is DENIED . The parties are ordered to meet and confer over the following: · The production of WhatsApp messages between Harold Herskowitz and Afton Properties, Inc. to determine whether these messages were produced. · The production of all internal emails from Afton Properties, Inc. concerning the subject property and the instant suit. It is so ordered. Dated: July 9, 2024 _______________________ MEL RED RECANA Judge of the Superior Court

MOTION TO FILE A CROSS- CVRI2306229 MAYS VS ENNIS COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling: GRANT Cross-Complaint to be filed and served within 5 days.

Case Number: 23STCV30245 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 17 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 17 TENTATIVE RULING TAE SUNG SHIN vs. GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Case No.: 23STCV30245 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend to file a FAC is GRANTED. On 12/12/2023, Plaintiff (Tae Sung Shin) filed suit against Genworth Life Insurance Company, Hanmi Bank, Susan Cho, Michelle Kim, and John Kim, alleging: (1) breach of life insurance contract; (2) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; (3) breach of bank account contract; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) resulting trust; (6) constructive trust; (7) tortious interference with contractual relations; (8) unjust enrichment; (9) common counts; (10) declaratory relief; and (11) injunctive relief. On 4/9/2024, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC). Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition. Discussion Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to file a FAC. The proposed amendment would clarify existing allegations, would add causes of action against the individual defendants for Elder Abuse, Conversion, and Cancellation of Instrument, and would remove causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty against Hanmi Bank, and for tortious interference with contractual relations against the individual defendants. The policy favoring leave to amend is so strong that it is an abuse of discretion to deny an amendment unless the adverse party can show meaningful prejudice. ( Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761. ) Here, trial is not until 11/10/2025. Plaintiffs motion is adequately supported by a proposed amended pleading and a substantive explanation as to why the new allegations are necessary. Accordingly, the Court finds no meaningful prejudice would result from granting leave to amend. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend to file a FAC is granted. It is so ordered. Dated: July , 2024 Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org . 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 all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. 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 . For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 11, 2024 line 2. DEFENDANT BRENDAN WEE, ERIKA HILTON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS is Off Calendar - Per request of moving party. =(501/HEK) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.

Case Number: 19STCV30580 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: 20 Tentative Ruling Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 20 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Case Name: Middleton, et al. v. Lee, et al. Case No.: 19STCV30580 Matter: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Moving Party: Marc Rohatiner, counsel for Plaintiffs John P. Middleton and The John Powers Middleton Companies, LLC Responding Party: Unopposed Notice: OK Ruling: The Motion is granted. Moving party to give notice. If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Marc Rohatiner seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs John P. Middleton and The John Powers Middleton Companies, LLC. The Motion is granted because it meets all requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. Moving party to give notice. Attorney is relieved as counsel of record for client effective upon the filing of the proof of service for the Court order (form MC-053) upon the client. If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

RG21112456: Martinez VS Pinterest, Inc. 07/10/2024 Hearing on Motion to Continue Motion to Continue Discovery Deadlines; filed by Christine Martinez (Plaintiff) in Department 20 Tentative Ruling - 07/08/2024 Karin Schwartz The Motion to Continue Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Continuance of Discovery Deadlines; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Christine Martinez on 06/04/2024 is Granted in Part. Plaintiff Christine Martinez’s motion to continue the fact discovery deadline is GRANTED IN PART. BACKGROUND On September 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Pinterest, Inc., Ben Silbermann, and Paul Sciarra. On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging (1) breach of implied contract, (2) breach of implied contract (idea theft), (3) unjust enrichment, (4) conversion, and (5) unfair business practices. On February 8, 2024, the Court appointed the Hon. James Warren (ret.) as the Discovery Referee in this action pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. The Court modified the appointment pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to address Judge Warren’s professional and case management fees on March 4, 2024. To date, Judge Warren has issued twelve (12) discovery management orders (“DMO”). Plaintiff moves to extend the discovery cut-off deadline to allow the Judge Warren to resolve outstanding discovery issues regarding the production of documents, Person(s) Most Qualified (“PMQ”) designations, and depositions of percipient witnesses and PMQs. The moving papers originally requested an extension to July 14, 2024. On Reply, Plaintiff requests an extension to “mid-August”, but fails to identify a specified date certain. Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that there are no remaining discovery disputes, and issues identified in the moving papers have since been resolved. DISCUSSION Plaintiff argues that discovery remains outstanding as (1) Defendants must still produce documents pursuant to various DMOs, and (2) Defendants have failed to designate PMQ witnesses as ordered by Judge Warren. Plaintiff further contends that Defendants have produced a large amount of discovery days before the June 14, 2024 discovery cut-off deadline, which deprives Plaintiff of the opportunity to meaningfully review the documents and question witnesses as to the import and meaning of such documents as they relate to Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiff further contends that there remain deficiencies as to the production of documents responsive to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 7-14, 42-43, 46, 53, 79, 81 and 247. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA RG21112456: Martinez VS Pinterest, Inc. 07/10/2024 Hearing on Motion to Continue Motion to Continue Discovery Deadlines; filed by Christine Martinez (Plaintiff) in Department 20 (Reply at pp. 4-5.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants have failed to designate PMQ witnesses as to PMQ Topics 3, 11, 15, and 26, pursuant to DMO No. 8. (Reply at p. 6.) Plaintiff further argues that there remain issues regarding the depositions of Defendant Silbermann and Jacob Jessick as PMQ designees on their respective PMQ topics. (Reply at pp. 7-8.) Defendants’ Opposition, filed on June 26, 2024 (after the close of the discovery deadline) contends that since Plaintiff filed the motion on June 4, 2024, Defendants have provided the requested discovery. While Defendants argue that the discovery referee proceeding is complete (Opp. at p. 13), Plaintiff notes that Judge Warren heard argument on June 25 regarding two discovery issues raised by Defendants and on July 2, 2024, Defendants offered to further meet and confer remaining further discovery issues. (Reply at pp. 7-8, fn. 7.) Plaintiff represents that although Judge Warren is out from July 8 – July 29, 2024, he has indicated that he will address any outstanding discovery issues. (Reply at p. 1.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has established sufficient good cause to extend the discovery cut- off deadline to resolve the current outstanding disputes identified in the moving and reply papers. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. The deadline for fact discovery is extended to August 9, 2024 but only for the Discovery Referee to resolve disputes identified by Plaintiff’s moving and reply papers. Neither party shall propound any further discovery. This Order shall not be construed as any decision by the Court on the merits as to the remaining disputed discovery issues. If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court. HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA RG21112456: Martinez VS Pinterest, Inc. 07/10/2024 Hearing on Motion to Continue Motion to Continue Discovery Deadlines; filed by Christine Martinez (Plaintiff) in Department 20 court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

FISCUS VS. PATTERSON, ET AL. Case Number: CVCV22-0199210 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Continue Trial Date: This matter involves multiple parties and Cross- Complaints. Plaintiff is Paula Fiscus. Defendant/Cross-Defendants/Cross-Complainants Gregory G. Gonzales and Marcia J. Gonzales, Trustees of the Greg and Marcia Gonzales Family 2014 Revocable Trust will be referred to as the Gonzales Defendants. James Patterson and Patterson Landscape/Yard Manicurist Agency will be referred to as the Patterson Defendants. The Gonzales Defendants have filed a Motion to Continue the presently set August 20, 2024, trial date. The Patterson Defendants have joined the motion. Plaintiff has opposed the motion. Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company has not filed anything related to the motion and did not attend the ex parte hearing on June 27, 2024, at which time was shortened to hear the motion today instead of July 22, 2024, as originally noticed. There is no evidence that the Gonzales Defendants provided notice of today’s hearing to Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company. Cross-Defendant Mark Behnke Construction has also not filed anything related to the motion but did attend the ex parte hearing and is therefore aware of today’s hearing. Merits. “To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” CRC 3.1332(a). “Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” CRC 3.1332(c). Circumstances that may indicate good cause are: (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. CRC 3.1332(c). When considering whether to grant a motion to continue, there are several factors that the Court must consider including: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. CRC 3.1332(d). The reasons presented by the Gonzales Defendants to continue the trial are that trial counsel has a conflicting trial schedule and because Marcia Gonzales’s son is getting married the week of trial. In the moving papers, the Gonzales Defendants note that the wedding date was set prior to the Court setting the Augst 20, 2024 trial date. The reasons for the Patterson Defendants joining the motion are because counsel has a conflicting trial schedule, counsel is moving homes in late August, and because the Pattersons have a prepaid vacation from August 26- September 6, 2024. It is not clear whether the Pattersons’ vacation was set and prepaid when the Court set the trial date of if the Pattersons planned it after the trial date was set. Plaintiff opposes the continuance on the grounds that Defendants have failed to show good cause for the continuance, and because Plaintiff will be prejudiced by a continuance. The prejudice alleged is that a later trial would not allow time for necessary remediation of the landscaping issues before the next rainy reason. These issues have resulted in significant erosion and flooding. Plaintiff also argues that the parties stipulated to the August 20, 2024, trial date and all agreed that no further continuances would be granted absent stipulation. While this agreement did not make it into the Court’s Order dated April 10, 2024 (which was submitted by the Patterson Defendants), it is clear from the Stipulation that the parties did reach such a stipulation. Conflicting trial schedules do not automatically create good cause to continue a trial. Trial counsel regularly have multiple trials set for the same week. Any attorney who practices in civil law is well aware that not every trial set actually goes forward as scheduled. No good cause has been presented in that regard. As to the wedding, it appears the counsel for the Gonzales Defendants did not check with their client prior to agreeing to a trial date. Had they checked, surely Ms. Gonzales would have pointed out that her son was getting married that week. The unavailability of Ms. Gonzales due to her son’s wedding may constitute an excusable circumstance under CRC 3.1332(c)(2). Similarly, the Patterson’s vacation could also be such a circumstance, depending on when it was scheduled. Regarding the CRC 3.1332(d) factors, the trial date is one month and twelve days away. Trial has been continued twice before. The first was by stipulation on October 13, 2022. The second was by stipulation on April 9, 2024, as discussed above. The Gonzales Defendants have requested a continuance to November of 2024 while the Patterson Defendants have requested 45-60 days. The only alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance would be potentially taking witnesses out of order at trial. Plaintiff may be prejudiced by the continuance. The matter is not entitled to preferential trial setting. Regarding the Court’s calendar, one of the two civil trial courts will be dark on the currently set date of August 20, 2024, which reduces the chance that this matter will be assigned to a courtroom for trial. Counsel is not currently engaged in another trial that causes a conflict and only provides evidence that there are other trials that might affect counsel’s availability. There is no stipulation for a continuance. The parties previously agreed that no further continuances would occur absent a stipulation. Regarding the interests of justice, the Court is in a position of having to weigh how much counsel’s failure to consult with their clients regarding their schedules should be permitted to affect their client on a personal level. It is clear that counsel should have done a better job to make sure that the agreed upon trial date worked for all parties, and not just counsel. This is particularly so when the parties explicitly stipulated that no further continuances would take place. However, the Court does not feel that it is in the interest of justice to punish Ms. Gonzales by potentially preventing her from participating in her son’s wedding based on counsel’s failure to communicate properly. As to the Patterson vacation, it is unclear whether this vacation was set at the time the trial was set or if the Pattersons scheduled their vacation later. However, the Court does understand the need for the Pattersons to be present for the trial to present their testimony. On balance, the Court finds that granting of a short continuance would be in the interest of justice. The Pattersons’ vacation lasts until September 6, 2024. Therefore, the Court intends to continue the trial to Tuesday, September 10, 2024. If this trial date does not work for Plaintiff, the Court will entertain the first available date for Plaintiff. Should the trial be continued, all discovery deadlines will flow from the new trial date. However, the Court notes that Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company was not provided with notice of today’s hearing. Absent an appearance by Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company, the Court will continue today’s hearing to July 22, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 63 as that is the date that was originally noticed.