Case Number: 22STCV04608 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 56 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT MARTIN TELLECHEA, an Individual , Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO.: 22STCV04608 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS Date: July 18, 2024 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Martin Tellechea (Plaintiff) RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant City of Los Angeles (Defendant) The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND This case arises from an incident that occurred on March 23, 2023, when Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell due to an uneven/raised portion of a sidewalk owned and maintained by Defendant. On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant asserting the following causes of action: (1) general negligence; and (2) premises liability. On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant with a Request for Monetary Sanctions (the Motion). On July 3, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition; Plaintiff filed a reply on July 11, 2024. MEET AND CONFER Parties have complied with the meet and confer requirements. DISCUSSION Legal Standard Any party may obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) Service of a proper deposition notice is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party fails to appear for examination or fails to produce for inspection any document described in the deposition notice, without having served a valid objection under section 2025.410, the party noticing the deposition may move for an order compelling attendance or production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) Such a motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b).) C.C.P. 2025.450(g)(1) states that: If a motion [to compel deposition] is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction& in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Motion Plaintiff states that it served Defendants with two deposition notices on two occasions: (1) on March 26, 2024, Plaintiff served his Notice of Taking Deposition of Employee(s) and/or Person(s) Most Qualified for Defendant, noticing the deposition for April 22, 2024 (Declaration of Nima Sadeghian (Sadeghian Decl.), ¶ 3, Exh. 1); and (2) on May 1, 2024, Plaintiff served his Notice of First Continuance of Taking Deposition of Employee(s) and/or Person(s) Most Qualified for Defendant, noticing the deposition to take place on May 22, 2024 (Sadeghian Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 2.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to serve valid objections and refused to appear for deposition despite the properly served deposition notices. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant refuses to provide Plaintiffs counsel with alternative and reasonable available dates for Defendants deposition, and claims that the delay in the discovery process will affect his ability to prepare for the upcoming trial. Opposition Defendant points out that no trial date was set when the Motion was filed. Additionally, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff unilaterally chose deposition dates without considering the availability of the Person Most Qualified (PMQ) for Defendant, despite Defendants having provided those dates to Plaintiff. Defendant argues that it responded with an objection to Plaintiffs notices of deposition, and provided alternative dates when its PMQ, Glenn LaCoure, would be available. (Declaration of Carolyn Phillips, ¶¶ 2-5.) Defendants PMQ states that he is unavailable for the dates noticed in Plaintiffs deposition notices, and that his current earliest availability for a deposition is on September 24, 2024. (Declaration of Glenn LaCoure, ¶¶ 3-5.) Reply In reply, Plaintiff argues that providing a deposition date more than four months in the future is unreasonable. RULING The Local Rules provide that reasonable consideration is to be given to accommodating schedules. (Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rules, Appendix 3.A, Guidelines for Civility in Litigation, subsection (e)(2) [In scheduling depositions, reasonable consideration should be given to accommodating schedules or opposing counsel and of the deponent, where it is possible to do so without prejudicing the clients rights.].) The Court notes that the trial date in this case is currently set for August 18, 2025. As such, the Court considers the deposition date of September 24, 2024, agreed upon by Defendant, to be reasonable. The Court also finds that there is no prejudice to Plaintiff, as the trial date is more than a year away from the date of this Order. Both parties are requesting monetary sanctions against each other. The Court does not find that monetary sanctions are warranted in this case. Therefore, no monetary sanctions are imposed. RULING Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED. Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. Dated this 18th day of July 2024 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

Case Number: 22STCV38941 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 20 Tentative Ruling Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 20 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Case Name: Ramsey v. Clearmark Title Company, et al. Case No.: 22STCV38941 Matter: Motion to Compel Further Responses Moving Party: Plaintiff Laurie Ramsey Responding Party: Defendant Clearmark Title Company 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. This is an employment action. Plaintiff Laurie Ramsey seeks to compel Defendant Clearmark Title Company (Clearmark) to provide further responses to her requests for production, set one. With respect to request nos. 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, Defendant responded: Responding Party will produce all responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control. Thus, the response is sufficient. On the other hand, it is not clear whether the documents have actually been produced and, in any case, Defendant apparently failed to indicate what documents relate to what responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280(a).) Thus, Defendant is to produce all responsive documents and indicate the documents that pertain to the specific requests at issue. Request nos. 2, 20, 21, and 33 seek employee documents about Plaintiffs pay and benefits, job offer, communications, contracts, and awards; policies about termination; all documents about Defendants employment policies and procedures; and policies about preventing discrimination and retaliation against individuals that complain of unlawful activities. Defendant responded that it would produce either Plaintiffs entire personnel file or its employee handbook, depending on the request. The Motion is granted as to these requests because it is not clear that the handbook or personnel file actually contain all responsive documents and so the response should be that all responsive documents will be produced. In sum, the Motion is granted. Further responses and production should be provided within 30 days. The Court awards Plaintiff reduced sanctions in the amount of $1,000. 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.

Case Number: 23STCV30186 Hearing Date: July 22, 2024 Dept: 56 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ELIZABETH SHUAI WONG , Plaintiff, vs. FLIPFIT, f.k.a. HUMANS, INC., a Delaware corporation, NOORULDEEN ALAARIF, a.k.a. NOOR AGHA, an individual, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive , Defendants. CASE NO.: 23STCV30186 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESS, SET ONE Date: July 22, 2024 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Elizabeth Shuai Wong (Plaintiff) RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Flipfit, fka Humans, Inc. (Defendant) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This is a representative action filed by Plaintiff on December 11, 2023, seeking recovery of civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code §2698, et seq . (PAGA), for alleged Labor Code violations of: failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide all required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit all required rest periods, failure to pay all earned wages each pay period, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay vested vacation wages, failure to reimburse necessary business expenditures, failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to maintain an effective Injury and Illness Prevention Program and retaliation for use of Covid-19 supplemental sick pay. On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendants Responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Production, Set One (the RFPs Motion), and a Motion to Compel Defendants Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One (the SIs Motion) (collectively, the Motions). Defendant filed a consolidated opposition to the Motions on July 9, 2024, and Plaintiff filed a reply on July 15, 2024. DISCUSSION SIs Motion Under Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 2030.290, subdivision (b), when a party directs interrogatories towards a party, and that party fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. ( Id. , § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The moving party need only show that the interrogatories were served on the opposing party, the time has expired to respond to the interrogatories and no responses have been served in order for the court to compel the opposing party to respond. ( Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.) Here, Plaintiff served Defendant with Special Interrogatories, Set One (SIs) on January 30, 2024. (Declaration of Leonard H. Sansanowicz in Support of SIs Motion, ¶ 3.) Defendant had not served responses to the SIs as of the date of filing of the SIs Motion on April 22, 2024. ( Id. , ¶ 11.) On June 7, 2024, however, Defendant responded to all discovery requests served by Plaintiff, without objections. (Declaration of Matthew Theriault (Theriault Decl.), ¶ 10.) Plaintiff does not dispute, and in fact, acknowledges that Defendant did provide objections-free responses to the SIs on June 7, 2024. (Supplemental Declaration of Leonard H. Sansanowicz in Support of Plaintiffs Reply (Sansanowicz Supp. Decl.), ¶ 22.) Accordingly, since responses to the SIs, without objections, have now been served, the SIs Motion is MOOT. To the extent that Plaintiff contends that the responses are insufficient or not otherwise complete or Code-compliant, Plaintiff has forty-five days from the date of this order to file a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses. RFPs Motion When a party fails to serve a timely response to an inspection demand, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. ( Id. , § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Here, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (RFPs) on January 30, 2024. (Declaration of Leonard H. Sansanowicz in Support of RFPs Motion, ¶ 3.) Defendant had not served responses to the RFPs as of the date of filing of the RFPs Motion on April 22, 2024. ( Id. , ¶ 11.) On June 7, 2024, however, Defendant responded to all discovery requests served by Plaintiff, without objections. (Theriault Decl., ¶ 10.) Additionally, on July 9, 2024, Defendant produced documents. ( Id. ) Plaintiff does not dispute, and in fact, acknowledges that Defendant did provide objections-free responses to the RFPs on June 7, 2024. (Sansanowicz Supp. Decl., ¶ 22.) Accordingly, since responses to the RFPs, without objections, have now been served, and documents have been produced, the RFPs Motion is MOOT. To the extent that Plaintiff contends that the responses and documents produced are insufficient or not otherwise complete or Code-compliant, Plaintiff has forty-five days from the date of this order to file a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses. Monetary Sanctions Nevertheless, the question of sanctions still remains before the Court. [P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses]. ( Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407.) Even if the untimely response does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses&the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion. ( Id. , at pp. 408-409.) This rule gives an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion. ( Id. , at p. 408.) If the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions, the trial court may deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions. ( Id. at p. 409; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a) [The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed].) The court shall impose a monetary sanction& against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (c).) [T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction& against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. ( Id. , § 2031.300, subd. (c).) In this case, Defendant asserts that the delayed responses were caused by unexpected medical issues experienced by the previous attorney handling the case. The Court also acknowledges that there have been multiple changes in the counsel representing Defendant. Furthermore, Plaintiff agreed to an extension for Defendant to provide responses by June 7, 2024, and Defendant complied with this deadline. (Sansanowicz Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 17-22; Theriault Decl., ¶¶ 8-10.) Thus, the Court finds that, under the circumstances, there is substantial justification for the delayed responses and that monetary sanctions are not warranted. Accordingly, no sanctions are imposed. RULING The Motions are DENIED as moot. The requests for monetary sanctions are also DENIED. Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. Dated this 22nd day of July 2024 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON COMPLAINT FOR SALAZAR VS REAL TIME OTHER EMPLOYMENT (OVER CVRI2305824 STAFFING SERVICES, LLC $25,000) OF MICHELLE SALAZAR BY REAL TIME STAFFING SERVICES, LLC Tentative Ruling: Grant request for judicial notice. Grant motion for judgment on the pleadings. Moving party to prepare an order and judgment of dismissal—the proposed order presented July 1 does not address the motion.

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 leave to file first amended complaint (FAC) is continued to 7/26/24, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 10-D. The copy of the FAC which was submitted with this motion isn't signed. If the signed copy of the FAC isn't timely filed with the Court prior to the continued date of 7/26/24, then this motion will be Denied. No opposition filed. Court is not permitting oral argument on this continuance of the hearing. Barbara A. Kronlund

PETITION TO COMPEL CVRI2400225 ALEJOS VS FRIAR TUX SHOP ARBITRATION Tentative Ruling: No further tentative ruling, appearances requested.

CV-23-002478 – LOPEZMARTINEZ, LUCIA vs PCV MODESTO 1 LLC – Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Paga Settlement and Dismiss Action with Prejudice – GRANTED, and unopposed. Based on the information provided in the moving papers and supporting evidence, the Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and provides for relief that is genuine, meaningful, and consistent with the State’s goal of benefitting the public through enforcement of its labor laws. Therefore, the Court approves the settlement and the distribution of the settlement funds, including the amounts allocated to attorney’s fees and costs, as set forth in the moving papers.  (Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2).) The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.