Party Discovery: DENISE VAN DOREN Vs. STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE CO

FCS058487 Motion for Leave to Amend TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff has failed to file a proof of service demonstrating proper and timely service of the motion papers on Defendants. Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1602210102?pwd=emlhR29SczExam56NFFqWHFvSitmZz09 Meeting ID: 160 221 0102 Passcode: 650928 One tap mobile +16692545252,,1602210102#,,,,*650928# US (San Jose) +16692161590,,1602210102#,,,,*650928# US (San Jose)

Re: Gorrill v. Tinajero et al. Superior Court Case No. 22CECG03284 Hearing Date: July 24, 2024 (Dept. 403) Motion: By Defendant City of Coalinga for Summary Judgment If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Wednesday, July 31, 2024, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 403. Tentative Ruling: To grant. Defendant City of Coalinga is directed to submit a proposed judgment consistent with this order within five days of service of the minute order by the clerk. Explanation: On October 17, 2022, plaintiff Ralph Gorrill (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for two causes of action: (1) premises liability; and (2) negligence. The Complaint is brought against defendants Steven Tinajero, Esther Tinajero, the Tinajero Family Trust, and the City of Coalinga. Plaintiff alleges that on February 13, 2022, at the intersection of West Cedar Avenue and North 6th Street in Coalinga, California, Plaintiff sustained damages as a result of holes and defects of the sidewalk. Defendant City of Coalinga (“Defendant”) now seeks summary judgment of the Complaint. A trial court shall grant summary judgment where there are no triable issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc. §437c, subd. (c); Schacter v. Citigroup (2009) 47 Cal.4th 610, 618.) The issue to be determined by the trial court in consideration of a motion for summary judgment is whether or not any facts have been presented which give rise to a triable issue, and not to pass upon or determine the true facts in the case. (Petersen v. City of Vallejo (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 757, 775.) The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he or she carries this burden, the burden shifts to plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849.) A defendant has met his burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if he has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Ibid.) Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. (Ibid.) Defendant submits that there is no triable issue of material fact in general as to itself on each of the first cause of action, for premises liability, and the second cause of action, for negligence. Defendant submits the following facts based on deposition testimony and deemed admissions. Plaintiff fell solely from losing his balance after his dog lunged while he was holding the leash. (Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [“SUMF”], No. 8.) Plaintiff’s fall was not caused by Defendant’s sidewalk. (Id., No. 9.) Defendant did not cause Plaintiff to fall. (Id., No. 11.) Defendant was not negligent in regards to Plaintiff’s fall. (Id., No. 10.) Based on the above, Defendant has met its burden to show no triable issues of material fact as to the first and second causes of action for premises liability and negligence. Accordingly, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate a triable issue. Plaintiff did not oppose. The motion for summary judgment is granted, in favor of Defendant City of Coalinga, and against Plaintiff Ralph Gorrill. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Tentative Ruling Issued By: JS on 7/23/2024 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)

C24-00022 CASE NAME: BINGHUI LIU VS. COLLECT ACCESS, LLC DEFAULT HEARING IN RE: DEFAULTED DEFENDANT COLLECT ACCESS AND OFFER/ACCEPTANCE TO COMPROMISE FOR ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS FILED BY: *TENTATIVE RULING:* Appearance required.

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Thursday, July 25, 2024, Line 8. PLAINTIFF CHRISTOPHER HESLIN's Motion To Compel Deposition Testimony From Defendant Michelle Otero. Continued to August 15, 2024 to be heard on the court's discovery calendar. =(302/RBU)

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Tuesday, July 23, 2024, Line 9. DEFENDANT DMITRY SHUBOV AN INDIVIDUAL AND VLADIMIR SHUBOV's MOTION TO STRIKE 1ST Amended COMPLAINT. Continued to August 7, 2024, to be heard by Judge Ulmer. =(302/CK)

MARQUEZ VS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CVSW2310812 TUTTOILMONDO SANCTIONS Tentative Ruling: The Motion is DENIED. There are no new facts or law since plaintiff’s motion fails to set forth a sufficient evidentiary basis upon which to conclude that she was not served with the motion to compel further responses.

19CV-02322 Domingo Hurtado v. Pacific Express Inn, LLC, et al. Case Management Conference Appearance required. Remote appearances are permitted. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to arrange for a remote appearance. Appear to address the status of the case. It appears that a number of Doe Defendants have been recently added but not yet served.

Re: Moralez v. Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center Superior Court Case No. 23CECG05231 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 (Dept. 503) Motion: Motions by Defendants ASFC, LLC, doing business as Sierra Vista Healthcare, and Aspen Skilled Healthcare, Inc. to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents and Things (all Set One), and for an Order Establishing Admissions as to Plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez and as to Plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez as Heir and Successor-in-Interest to Yolanda Moralez, and Request for Monetary Sanctions Tentative Ruling: To grant all motions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280.) Within 20 days of service of the order by the clerk, plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez as heir and successor- in-interest to Yolanda Moralez, shall serve objection-free responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and produce all responsive documents. The matters specified in defendants’ Requests for Admissions, Set One are deemed admitted, unless plaintiff serves, before the hearing, a proposed response to each set of the requests for admissions that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. To grant monetary sanctions against plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez in the amount of $1,755.00, payable within 20 calendar days from the date of service of the minute order by the clerk. Explanation: Defendants ASFC, LLC, doing business as Sierra Vista Healthcare, and Aspen Skilled Healthcare, Inc., propounded identical sets of discovery (including the 131 special interrogatories) on plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez individually, and on plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez as heir and successor-in-interest to Yolanda Moralez. Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to this discovery. All that needs to be established to support an order compelling initial responses to discovery is to show that the discovery was properly served, and that no responses were received by the due date. Failing to respond to discovery within the 30- day time limit waives objections to the discovery, including claims of privilege and “work product” protection. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, Subd. (a) [interrogatories] and 2031.300, Subd. (a) [document demands]; see Leach v. Sup.Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.) As for requests for admissions, the court must grant a motion to establish admissions “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) “If the party manages to serve its responses before the hearing, the court has no discretion but to deny the motion . . . . Everything, in short, depends on submitting responses prior to the hearing.” (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 393, 395-396, disapproved on another point in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973.) No evidence has been submitted that plaintiff has served code- compliant responses to the two sets of requests for admissions served on her. Therefore, all motions will be granted. However, the discovery at issue here was duplicative; it was served on plaintiff in her dual capacities as an individual (for the wrongful death cause of action) and as successor in interest to her now-deceased mother (as to the remaining causes of action). None of the discovery was tailored to any differences between plaintiff’s two capacities, but instead were completely identical, and because of this, could be called confusing.1 While defendants are allowed to propound duplicative discovery, the court is not required to double the sanctions for these efforts. Thus, this impacts the court’s consideration of defendants’ request for monetary sanctions. The court may refuse to issue monetary sanctions if it finds there are circumstances that would render sanctions “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, Subd. (c) [Interrogatories], 2031.300, Subd. (c) [Document demands].) Here, it would be unjust to grant sanctions in the amount requested. Defendants filed motions concerning four types of identical discovery propounded on plaintiff in each of her two capacities in this action. They divided these into two motions (so four motions total), one regarding the form and special interrogatories and document demands, and the other regarding the requests for admissions. So the attorney work was in drafting four motions. They asked for sanctions for one hour of legal research for each of the four motions, and three hours to prepare each of the substantially identical four motions, plus time for appearance at the hearing, plus filing fees. The court will allow a total of five hours for preparing these substantially identical motions at counsel’s stated hourly rate of $255/hour ($1,275.00) plus $480 for the motion fees paid, for a total of $1,755.00. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Tentative Ruling Issued By: jyh on 7/24/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date) 1 The 131 special interrogatories directed to plaintiff as an individual, in particular, were confusing and are arguably irrelevant if taken at face value (despite counsel’s “declaration of necessity pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.050) since they are written as if plaintiff, individually, alleged she was the victim of elder abuse, when she alleged her mother was the victim. These were not tailored to ask about plaintiff’s contentions regarding her individual, i.e., wrongful death damages. Alternately, if she regarded these (or had been instructed to regard these) as asking for answers about her mother’s injuries and damages, they would be simply duplicative of the special interrogatories propounded on her as decedent’s successor-in-interest.