/media/1556

Case Number: 22STCV33658 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 68 Dept. 68 Date: 7-16-24 Case #: 22STCV33658 Trial Date: 1-9-25 c/f 6-24-24 FURTHER INTERROGATORIES MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Samuel Welch RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Noah Penn-El RELIEF REQUESTED Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiffs were tenants of a single family dwelling at 32270 Saticoy Street, West Hills, and allege unsanitary and/or unsafe conditions on the premises as a result of improper maintenance and upkeep. On October 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Failure to Provide Habitable Dwellings, Breach of Covenant of Right to Quiet Enjoyment and Possession of the Property, Nuisance, and Negligence. Defendants answered the complaint on February 23, 2023. On June 10, 2024, Derrick Robinson filed a Request for Dismissal from the complaint. RULING : Granted. Defendant, Samuel Welch moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set one), numbers 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 12.4, from Plaintiff Noah Penn-El. The responses consist of incomplete replies, or admission of certain unspecified documents or media. The responses are incomplete and fail to respond to all subcategories of the requests. The references to other persons constitutes an improper, factually incomplete answer. ( Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783784 [Answers must be complete and responsive. Thus, it is not proper to answer by stating, See my deposition, See my pleading, or See the financial statement].) The motion is therefore granted. Responding is ordered to serve responses in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210-20310240. No sanctions requested. The court calendar shows one remaining, scheduled motion to compel further responses through July 22, 2024. The motions appear as a continuation of discovery issues addressed by the court in the 23 motions to compel responses granted on November 22, 2023. The court does not conduct any informal discovery conferences. While the court understands the prior use and perhaps reliance on the IDC system, the court finds the number of items on the court calendar through the next three months presents a potentially inordinate burden. The court reserves the right to set an OSC re: Discovery Referee in lieu of a hearing on any given motion, and may take off any and all motions in lieu of the OSC hearing. The court invites the parties to continue meeting and conferring, including the provision of supplemental responses, when possible. The final motion to compel further responses for this set of items addresses Shenikwa Malone on July 22, 2024. Defendant to give notice. Dept. 68 Date: 7-16-24 Case #: 22STCV33658 Trial Date: 1-9-25 c/f 6-24-24 FURTHER INTERROGATORIES MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Samuel Welch RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Iyana Jackson RELIEF REQUESTED Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiffs were tenants of a single family dwelling at 32270 Saticoy Street, West Hills, and allege unsanitary and/or unsafe conditions on the premises as a result of improper maintenance and upkeep. On October 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Failure to Provide Habitable Dwellings, Breach of Covenant of Right to Quiet Enjoyment and Possession of the Property, Nuisance, and Negligence. Defendants answered the complaint on February 23, 2023. On June 10, 2024, Derrick Robinson filed a Request for Dismissal from the complaint. RULING : Granted. Defendant, Samuel Welch moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set one), numbers 2.6, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 7.1, 7.2, 9.1, 9.2, and 12.4 from Plaintiff Iyana Jackson. The responses consist of incomplete replies, with assurances of later production upon entry into a protective order, or references to other parties and non-parties responsible for the provision of information. The responses are incomplete and fail to respond to all subcategories of the requests. The references to other persons constitutes an improper, factually incomplete answer. ( Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783784 [Answers must be complete and responsive. Thus, it is not proper to answer by stating, See my deposition, See my pleading, or See the financial statement].) The motion is therefore granted. Responding is ordered to serve responses in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210-20310240. No sanctions requested. The court calendar shows nine remaining, scheduled motions to compel further responses through July 22, 2024. The motions appear as a continuation of discovery issues addressed by the court in the 23 motions to compel responses granted on November 22, 2023. The court does not conduct any informal discovery conferences. While the court understands the prior use and perhaps reliance on the IDC system, the court finds the number of items on the court calendar through the next three months presents a potentially inordinate burden. The court reserves the right to set an OSC re: Discovery Referee in lieu of a hearing on any given motion, and may take off any and all motions in lieu of the OSC hearing. The court invites the parties to continue meeting and conferring, including the provision of supplemental responses, when possible. Next set of motions to compel further responses begins with Noah Penn-El beginning on July 22, 2024. Defendant to give notice.

Case Number: 20TRCV00847 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 8 Tentative Ruling ¿ ¿¿ HEARING DATE: July 16, 2024 ¿¿ CASE NUMBER: 20TRCV00847 ¿¿ CASE NAME: Drakk Holdings, LLC v. PSIP SN Vermont LLC, et al. ¿ ¿ MOVING PARTY: Defendant, PSIP SN Vermont, LLC ¿¿ RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Drakk Holdings, LLC ¿¿ TRIAL DATE: November 12, 2024 ¿¿ MOTION:¿ (1) Motion for Summary Judgment (2) DRAKKs objection to PSIPs Notice of Motion to Quash Deposition Ruling ¿ Tentative Rulings: (1) CONTINUED to allow the Zion Bank Deposition to be completed (2) Mooted in light of the Courts determination that, especially given the tentative against Drakk on the MSJ, The Zion Bank depo must go forward per CCP section 437c(h). The birth of counsels child is just cause to need to re-schedule a deposition that counsel was to be taking Discussion This Court requested the parties to discuss the issues identified at the previous hearing involving section 7.2.5 of the PSA. Both sides submitted 5 pages of briefs relating to the construction of Section 7.2.5, and the Court has digested those briefs. The Court has also reviewed Mr. Kenneallys July 3, 2024 Declaration. At the to-be-continued hearing that will occur after the Zion Bank deposition, the Court has these additional thoughts for counsel to consider between now and then. In DRAKKs supplemental opposition brief, it argues that Defendant failed to provide any admissible evidence that the Property complied with the Conditions of Approval regarding the Tentative Parcel Map. The Court is puzzled by this argument because the Final Map, not merely the Tentative, was filed as having been entirely approved nearly a year after the September 26, 2019 tentative approval letter from the County Department of Regional Planning. At the continued hearing, DRAKKs counsel should be prepared to explain how any of the 2019 conditions of approval are material in light of the filing of the Final Parcel Map. Does not the filing of the Final Parcel Map establish local approval? Does not the filing of the Final Map prove compliance with the Subdivision Map Act? Is there any evidence before the Court that Mr. Kenneally raised any allegedly unsatisfied specific condition of approval with DRAKK after Sean became alarmed about PSIPs Notice of the September 25, 2020 Tract Map recording? The Courts tentative ruling to grant the defense MSJ posits that PSIP has carried its initial burden on an MSJ, so the burden is shifted to DRAKK to show a disputed issue that is material to the determination of the motion. As to DRAKKs argument that the closing date should be construed to be at least 15 days after the last of the filing of the Final Map, CC&Rs and Access Agreement, the Court tentatively finds that argument does not raise any triable issue of material fact. The undisputed evidence before the Court is that the Final Parcel Map recorded on September 4, 2020, the CC&Rs recorded on October 1, 2020, and the Access Agreement recorded on October 6, 2020, all of which are more than 15 days before the last extended deadline of October 30, 2020. How does that chronology raise a triable issue of fact as to the closing date? And how does the absence of the map itself in evidence raise a material issue of fact if it is undisputed that it was recorded more than 15 days before the extended closing date? The Court will not take oral argument on these Court questions at the July 16, 2024 continued hearing, but will take argument as to the date to which the hearing should be continued so that the Zion Bank deposition can be taken and (a likely now) expedited transcript can be submitted. The Court tentatively will permit each side to file yet another up to 5-page supplemental brief bearing on what if anything the Court should consider from the Zion Bank testimony, and will take oral argument as to whether the briefs should be filed simultaneously or DRAKK should file first and PSIP be given a later date for its response.

Case Number: 22STCV10115 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 50 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 50 TOMAS LLAMAS , Plaintiff, vs. MARTIN ROBLES LOPEZ , et al ., Defendants. Case No.: 22STCV10115 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Plaintiff Tomas Llamas (Plaintiff) seeks entry of default judgment against Defendants Martin Robles Lopez and Francisca Montes De Oca aka Francisca Montesdeoca. Plaintiff seeks $1,961.73 in costs and judgment that the Covenant and Agreement Regarding Maintenance of Off-Street Parking Space recorded on August 7, 1959 authorizing three (3) parking spaces on the servient tenement for use by dominant tenement is extinguished. ( See Proposed Judgment, Item 8.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently supported his request with the submitted declarations and evidence. Therefore, Plaintiffs request is granted, and the Court will sign the judgment. No appearance at the hearing is necessary.¿¿ DATED: July 18, 2024 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

23CV02337 COX v. MROCZEK, et al. CONFIRMATION OF 6/28/24 ORDER TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF NONMONETARY STATUS The court has reviewed plaintiff’s Notification of Objection to and Disapproval of Any Proposed Order or Other Order: 1) Granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Complaint; or 2) Striking Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s objections merely go to the process by which parties engage on proposed orders; CRC 3.1312 has no impact on the power of the court to strike plaintiff’s amended complaint and dismiss this action. The court’s previous order of 6/28/24 granting defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s amended complaint is confirmed, as is dismissal of this action. Defendants are ordered to submit a formal dismissal order for the court’s signature. Page 1 of 2 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. Page 2 of 2

Case Number: 24SMCV02485 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 207 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 207 HEARING DATE July 16, 2024 CASE NUMBER 24SMCV02485 MOTION Motion to Quash Service of Summons MOVING PARTIES Defendants Lajos Gerbino and Edith Molnar OPPOSING PARTY none BACKGROUND On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff Silver Block Holding Company, LLC (Plaintiff) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Lajos Gerbino and Edith Molnar (Defendants.) On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff applied for an order to serve the summons by posting, which was granted the same day. The next day, on June 14, 2024, Defendants moved in pro per to quash service of the summons and complaint. The Court has not yet received an opposition, although because this is an unlawful detainer action, Plaintiff may file and serve a written opposition the day before the hearing or may make an opposition orally at the time of the hearing. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1327(b)-(c).) LEGAL STANDARDS A. SERVICE A summons in an action for unlawful detainer of real property may be served by posting if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the court in which the action is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in any manner specified in this article other than publication[.] (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.45, subd. (a).) The court shall order the summons to be posted on the premises in a manner most likely to give actual notice to the party to be served and direct that a copy of the summons and of the complaint be forthwith mailed by certified mail to such party at his last known address. ( Id. at subd. (b).) Service is complete on the 10 th day after posting and mailing. ( Id. at subd. (c).) On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff applied for an order to serve Defendants by posting. That application included a declaration of diligence, outlining several unsuccessful attempts to personally serve Defendants with a copy of the summons and complaint. Plaintiffs application to post was granted the same day. The following day, June 14, Defendants filed the instant motion to quash, arguing that Plaintiff only left a copy of the first page of the Complaint with one person, and without completing substitute service. (Motion at p. 3; Gerbino Decl. at lines 16-18.) As a threshold matter, the Court finds Defendants proof of service for the motion faulty. It indicates the declarant, Chelsea Cooper served a copy of the notice of motion and motion to Plaintiffs counsel AS FOLLOWS. I am readily familiar with the firms practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited within U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Diego, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date of postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. This does not indicate that the declarant actually left the notice of motion and motion anywhere for mailing, or otherwise deposited it in the mail. Further, declarant does not specify which firm or firms practice the declarant refers to. Further, to the extent that, at the time Defendants filed the instant motion, Defendants had only received the copy of the summons that had been posted, such conduct would be consistent with service by posting, but such service would not yet have been complete, as service by posting is not complete until 10 days after posting and mailing a copy of the summons and complaint. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on the motion to September 23, 2024 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207. Defendants shall provide notice of the motion and continued hearing by either personal service or by mail (regular or overnight) on or before July 26, 2024. Thereafter, Defendants shall file the notice with the Court with a proof of service on or before August 9, 2024. DATED: July 16, 2024 ___________________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. VS. SELLS Case Number: 22CV-0200669 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal (hereinafter “OSC”) issued May 31, 2024, to Plaintiff’s Counsel for failure to submit a proposed judgment as ordered on September 25, 2023. Counsel has submitted a response to the OSC Re: Dismissal, and a Request to Vacate an Order of Sanctions that was made by Judge Boeckman on May 28, 2024. The Court declines to vacate its May 31, 2024 Order imposing sanctions. That issue is not properly before the Court. That order was issued by another judge and Counsel failed to appear at the hearing on that matter. A proposed judgment was lodged with the Court on June 24, 2024. However, the Court notes that the proposed judgment identifies two street addresses for the subject property, each of which are different from the street address identified in the Request for Court Judgment by Default. The Court needs further clarification as to the correct address. The ‘correctness’ of the judgment is not at issue in the instant OSC. Only the failure to timely provide the Court with a proposed judgment is at issue in this hearing. Having reviewed counsel’s declaration, the Court finds good cause to vacate the instant OSCThe Court confirms today’s review hearing set for 9:00 a.m. ****************************************************************************** 9:00 a.m. Review Hearings ******************************************************************************

ECKELMAN, ET AL. VS. OLCO, INC Case Number: 23CV-0202690 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of the case and trial setting. The Court designates this matter as a Plan II case and intends to set the matter for trial no later than January 22, 2025. The parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to the hearing regarding proposed dates for trial. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.