S-CV-0052327 Duffert, Raymond vs. Oakmont Junior Vikings Football and Cheer No appearance required. CMC is continued to 10/14/24 at 2pm in Dept. 6. Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to Defendant(s): Geravis, Robert; Oakmont Junior Vikings Football and Cheer; Rodriguez, Raphael Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Geravis, Robert; Oakmont Junior Vikings Football and Cheer

No appearances necessary. After review of Plaintiff's CMC statement, the matter is continued for further case management to October 30, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 3. Updated CMC Statements must be filed and served at least 15 days prior to the CMC.

Re: E.F. v. Caruthers Unified School District Superior Court Case No. 22CECG03587 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 (Dept. 501) Motion: Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim of Minor Tentative Ruling: To grant. Proposed Orders to be signed. No appearances necessary. The court sets a status conference on October 22, 2024, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 501 for confirmation of deposit of the minor’s funds into a blocked account. If petitioner files the Acknowledgment of Receipt of Order and Funds for Deposit in Blocked Account (MC-356) at least five court days before the hearing, the status conference will come off calendar. 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: DTT on 7/9/2024 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)

23CV02997 HOOVER v. SHEPHERD (UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF HOOVER’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED The unopposed motion to be relieved is granted. 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 1 of 1

Case Number: 20STCV40002 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Dept: 28 Having set an order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement), the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On October 19, 2020, Plaintiffs Dalilah Villalobos, by and through her guardian ad litem Laura Eggleston, and Catalina Villalobos, by and through her guardian ad litem Maria Dominguez, filed this action against Defendants Final Touch Construction & Design, Luis Anthony Echeverria, Luis M. Echeverria, Chantra Sun, Lorraine Garcia, Gus Garcia, and Does 1-50 for wrongful death (motor vehicle negligence). On October 20, 2020, the Court appointed Laura Eggleston to serve as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Dalilah Villalobos. On October 29, 2020, the Court appointed Maria Dominguez to serve as guardian ad litem for Catalina Villalobos. On May 6, 2022, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Final Touch Construction & Design, Luis Anthony Echeverria, and Luis M. Echeverria filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-25 for equitable/implied indemnity, apportionment and contribution, and declaratory relief. On May 31, 2022, Defendant Chantra Sun filed an answer. In addition, Cross-Complainant Chantra Sun, individually and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Katrina Ariana Wilkins-Sun, filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Final Touch Construction & Design, Luis Anthony Echeverria, Luis M. Echeverria, and Roes 1-100 for negligence, wrongful death and survival action damages, equitable/implied indemnity, comparative contribution, apportionment, and tort of another. On November 29, 2022 and January 4, 2023, the Court dismissed Defendants Lorraine Garcia and Gus Garcia without prejudice at Plaintiffs request. On June 14, 2023, Cross-Complainant Chantra Sun filed a notice of unconditional settlement of the entire case on June 5, 2023. On August 28, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel asked the Court for additional time to submit petitions for approval of minors compromises. In response, the Court set an order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) and a status conference re: filing of a petition to approve minors compromise for November 28, 2023. On November 28, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel asked the Court for a continuance to finish negotiations on the Medi-Cal lien and to file petitions to approve minors compromises. The Court continued the order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) and the status conference re: filing of a petition to approve minor's compromise to March 8, 2024. On March 8, 2024, Plaintiffs counsel did not appear, contact the Court to explain the non-appearance, file a petition to approve minors compromise, or submit a declaration showing good cause. The Court continued the order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) and status conference re: filing of a petition to approve minor's compromise to April 24, 2024 and ordered counsel to file a declaration at least two court days before April 24, 2024 regarding the status of the petitions and counsel's failure to appear. On April 22, 2024, Plaintiffs counsel filed a declaration stating his failure to appear at the March 8, 2024 hearing was due to mistake, inadvertence and/or excusable neglect. Counsel stated: (1) the matter had settled, (2) he was filing petitions to approve minors compromises, and (3) he had reserved hearings on the petitions for May 21, 2024. Counsel asked the Court to continue the order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) and status conference re: filing of a petition to approve minor's compromise for 90 days. On April 24, 2024, the Court continued the order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) and status conference re: filing of a petition to approve minor's compromise to May 28, 2024. The Court ordered that the hearings on petitions to confirm minors compromise reserved for May 28, 2024 were to go forward and moving papers were to be filed timely. On May 24, 2024, Plaintiffs counsel filed a declaration stating that he did not file the petitions to approve minors compromise timely because "the guardian ad litems were still selecting the annuity structure for the respective claimants" and counsel was still waiting for fully executed annuity documents. On May 28, 2024 , the Court continued the order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) and status conference re: filing of a petition to approve minor's compromise to July 10, 2024. Plaintiffs have not filed petitions to approve minors compromises and have not submitted a new declaration showing good cause why the Court should not dismiss the action. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 provides: (a) The court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to this article on its own motion or on motion of the defendant if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case. (b) Dismissal shall be pursuant to the procedure and in accordance with the criteria prescribed by rules adopted by the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.410.) A discretionary dismissal under [Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410] (or for other delay in prosecution) is without prejudice to renewed litigation. (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 11:190.2, p. 11-83.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385, provides in part: (b) Dismissal of case Except as provided in (c) or (d), each plaintiff or other party seeking affirmative relief must serve and file a request for dismissal of the entire case within 45 days after the date of settlement of the case. If the plaintiff or other party required to serve and file the request for dismissal does not do so, the court must dismiss the entire case 45 days after it receives notice of settlement unless good cause is shown why the case should not be dismissed. * * * (d) Compromise of claims of a minor or disabled person If the settlement of the case involves the compromise of the claim of a minor or person with a disability, the court must not hold an order to show cause hearing under (b) before the court has held a hearing to approve the settlement, provided the parties have filed appropriate papers to seek court approval of the settlement. (e) Request for additional time to complete settlement If a party who has served and filed a notice of settlement under (a) determines that the case cannot be dismissed within the prescribed 45 days, that party must serve and file a notice and a supporting declaration advising the court of that party's inability to dismiss the case within the prescribed time, showing good cause for its inability to do so, and proposing an alternative date for dismissal. The notice and a supporting declaration must be served and filed at least 5 court days before the time for requesting dismissal has elapsed. If good cause is shown, the court must continue the matter to allow additional time to complete the settlement. The court may take such other actions as may be appropriate for the proper management and disposition of the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1385, subds. (b), (d), (e).) DISCUSSION As noted, on June 14, 2023, Cross-Complainant Chantra Sun filed a notice of unconditional settlement of the entire case. On August 28, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel confirmed the settlement by asking the Court for additional time to submit petitions to approve minors compromises. The Court granted the continuance request and granted counsels subsequent continuance requests on November 28, 2023, April 24, 2024, and May 28, 2024. It is now more than one year after the parties settled the case. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385(b), except as provided in subdivisions (c) or (d), the Court must dismiss the entire case 45 days after it receives notice of settlement unless good cause is shown why the case should not be dismissed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1385(b).) Subdivision (c) of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385, applies only to conditional settlements. The notice of settlement here states the settlement was unconditional. Therefore, subdivision (c) does not apply here. Subdivision (d) of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385, states that [i]f the settlement of the case involves the compromise of the claim of a minor or person with a disability, the court must not hold an order to show cause hearing under (b) before the court has held a hearing to approve the settlement, provided the parties have filed appropriate papers to seek court approval of the settlement . (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1385(d), emphasis added.) Here, Plaintiffs have not filed appropriate papers to seek Court approval of the settlement. Therefore, subdivision (d) does not prevent the Court from holding an order to show cause hearing. The Court set the July 10, 2024 order to show cause hearing on May 28, 2024. Plaintiffs have submitted no papers since May 28, 2024 demonstrating good cause why the case should not be dismissed. The Court dismisses the case under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385(b). CONCLUSION Having issued an order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) on May 28, 2024, and no good cause having been shown, the Court dismisses the case without prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385(b). The Court will give notice of this ruling.

DEMURRER ON COMPLAINT FOR OTHER NON-PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY WASHBON VS STATE FARM DAMAGE/WRONGFUL DEATH TORT CVRI2401690 MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE (OVER $35,000) OF STEVE INSURANCE COMPANY WASHBON BY STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ADAM ANDERSON Tentative Ruling: SUSTAIN with 30 days leave to amend. The third cause of action is uncertain because it includes allegations of negligence and negligent misrepresentation, which are separate causes of action. While Cal. Rule of Court 2.112 does not expressly require Plaintiff to split his claims into separate causes of action, Plaintiff should set forth the different theories into separate counts to facilitate the adjudication of their validity. Moreover, as pointed out by Defendant, this cause of action asserts some allegations against Anderson only, and some allegations against Defendants jointly, rendering the cause of action uncertain. The fourth cause of action for fraud does not state a cause of action with the required degree of specificity. Plaintiff does not describe where or when or by what means the representations were made. Additionally, these representations appear to be contradictory. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misrepresented that Plaintiff was not entitled to benefits and no coverage was available for the claim, while also asserting Defendants misrepresented that coverage existed. Because there is no context for either assertion, these allegations are confusing and ambiguous. Further, it is not clear who made the representations, or if the employee had authority to speak on behalf of the company. (Plaintiff states that the customer service representatives did not have authority and Plaintiff was not assigned an adjuster. (Complaint Para. 20.)) The allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action for fraud.

Case Number: 21STCV42736 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: S25 Procedural Background Plaintiffs, Todd Bertrang (Bertrang) and Ophie Beltran (Beltran) (collectively, Plaintiffs) sued Defendants, Lido Sailing Club, Inc. (Lido), Ivory Holdings, LLC (Ivory), and Scott Vollero (Vollero) based on injuries Plaintiffs allege they sustained from Bertrangs exposure to hazardous chemicals. Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on November 18, 2021, and filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on May 4, 2022. Notably, Plaintiffs did not serve any party prior to filing their FAC, and no party responded to the original complaint. On September 8, 2022, the Court sustained Lido Sailing Club, LLCs demurrer to the FAC with leave to amend. (September 8, 2022 Minute Order.) On September 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (SAC). On October 5, 2022, Lido filed a demurrer to the SAC. Shortly thereafter, the personal injury hub court found the case complicated and transferred it to Long Beach for all further proceedings. On January 12, 2023, Lido re-filed its demurrer to the SAC in Department S27. On June 27, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the demurrer, finding the parties had not adequately met and conferred prior to filing their papers. On July 27, 2023, the Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. On September 20, 2023, rather than amending the SAC, Plaintiffs dismissed Lido from the case. On December 21, 2023, Defendants Ivory Holdings and Vollero filed a demurrer with the motion to strike portions of the SAC. On January 23, 2024, the Court sustained the demurrer with leave to 20 days amend as to the NIED cause of action and alter ego liability cause of action and overruled the strict liability for ultrahazardous activity cause of action, the violation of Health and Safety Code, § 25359.7, cause of action and the IIED cause of action; the Court also granted the motion to strike without leave to amend as to punitive damages and related allegations. (January 23, 2024 Minute Order.) On April 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint (TAC) more than two months after the Courts January 23 order. Meet and Confer Defendant Volleros counsel states that he sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs counsel on May 17, 2024 detailing issues with the TAC and his availability for a telephonic meet and confer at least 5 days prior to filing the instant motions. (Rasmussen Decl.1, ¶ 5, Exh. B.) Defendant Volleros counsel states that Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to the meet and confer attempt. (Id., at ¶ 6.) In opposition, Plaintiffs counsel argues Defendant Volleros counsel failed to meet and confer because the issues were not discussed in person or by telephone as required under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5. Notwithstanding the parties conflicting ideas of meet and confer, it is very likely an informal attempt to resolve the matter would have been unsuccessful. Analysis 1. Delay in Filing of Third Amended Complaint Code Civ. Proc., § 472b, states that: [w] hen a demurrer to any pleading is sustained or overruled, and time to amend or answer is given, the time so given runs from the service of notice of the decision or order, unless the notice is waived in open court, and the waiver entered in the minutes. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 7:145; Cano v. Glover (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 326, 329-330.) After expiration of the time in which a pleading can be amended as a matter of course, the pleading can only be amended by obtaining the permission of the court. (Leader v. Health Indus. of Am., Inc. (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 603, 613.) While a court has discretion to require a noticed motion before permitting a plaintiff to file an amended complaint late, a court also has the discretion to accept a filing without a noticed motion. (Harlan v. Dep't of Transportation (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 868, 873.) The Court exercises its discretion and accepts Plaintiffs untimely filed Third Amended Complaint without a noticed motion. 2. Second Amended Complaint Holding (Alter Ego) On January 23, 2024, Judge Mark Kim sustained Defendant Volleros Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Judge Kim ruled: All claims against Volero are plead on an alter ego theory. Plaintiffs alter ego allegations are found at ¶6 of the SAC, and merely allege that each defendant was acting as the alter ego of each other defendant. Relying on Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Playa del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App. 221, 236, Judge Kim held: Plaintiffs herein failed to allege any of the ultimate facts showing alter ego liability. They failed to allege unity of interest, domination and control, inadequate capitalization, etc. Voleros demurrer is therefore sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs must allege ultimate facts showing imposition of liability against Volero would be proper. (See January 23, 2024 Minute Order, Legal Standard on Demurrer, Alter Ego Liability, 3(h)). 3. Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint (Alter Ego) A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing partys pleading. It is error for the trial court to sustain a demurrer if the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory, and it is an abuse of discretion for the court to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff has shown there is a reasonable possibility a defect can be cured by amendment. California Logistics, Inc. v. State of California (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 242, 247. The burden is on the complainant to show in what manner and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) Plaintiffs allegations of alter ego in the TAC are found at ¶ 3 and 6. These allegations are identical to the alter ego allegations found at ¶ 3 and ¶6 of the SAC. No additional facts or allegations have been added by Plaintiffs. As discussed, Judge Kim found those allegations deficient as Plaintiff failed to allege any of the ultimate facts showing alter ego liability and failed to allege unity of interest, domination and control, inadequate capitalization. (January 23, 2024 Minute Order). In sum, Plaintiffs completely failed to amend or modify their operative pleading in any manner or in compliance with Judge Kims ruling. In Plaintiffs opposition, Plaintiffs request leave to amend by suggesting three new facts, previously unknown, support the theory of alter ego between Vollero and Ivory Holdings. These facts are: (1) and (2) on August 16, 2016, two separate Deeds of Trust were recorded against the subject premises with Vollero as the Beneficiary and (3) Vollero, as an individual, performed the alleged remediation of the toxic chemicals which are alleged to have harmed Plaintiffs. Assuming the new facts found in Plaintiffs Opposition are true, Plaintiffs have not met their burden demonstrating how or in what manner these new allegations support of finding that a reasonable possibility exist for Plaintiffs to cure the defects and successfully pled a theory of alter ego. (Reeder v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 795, 805.) These additional facts show no connection between Vollero and Ivory Holdings. Even with the inclusion of those three allegations, Plaintiffs operative pleading would fail to allege any of the ultimate facts showing an alter ego theory as set forth in Rutherford (e.g. allegations of unity of interest, domination and control, inadequate capitalization). 4. Ruling The Court sustains Defendant Volleros Demurrer without leave to amend. Defendant Volleros motion to strike is now moot.

BAILEY VS. SHASTA UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0203011 This matter is on calendar for review. The matter was stayed following a stipulation of the parties due to a related Federal Action. Nothing has been filed informing the Court of the status of the Federal Action. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.