Summons: CENTRAL FLORIDA MEDICAL & CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INCvs.AUTO CLUB INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

S-CV-0052510 Ramirez, Hilario Castaneda vs. Greene, Daniel C. et al No appearance required. CMC is continued to 10/28/24 at 2pm in Dept. 6. Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to Defendant(s): Greene, Daniel C.; Greene, Suzanne R. Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Greene, Daniel C.; Greene, Suzanne R.

DEMURRER TO SECOND CVRI2305206 LAM VS ROHR, INC. AMENDED COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling: Overrule as to causes of action one through five. Sustain as to the sixth cause of action without leave to amend. Sustain as to the seventh cause of action with 20 days’ leave to amend.

22CV012148: WHITTAKER vs SUTTER HEALTH, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed by Sutter Health (Defendant) + in Department 15 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Peter Borkon The Motion re: DEFENDANTS NOTICE AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS OR EVIDENCE SANCTIONS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS filed by Sutter Bay Hospitals, Sutter Health on 05/29/2024 is Granted in Part. The Motion by Defendant Sutter Bay Hospitals dba Alta Bates Summit Medical Center (“Sutter”) for Terminating Sanctions or Evidence Sanctions and Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED, IN PART, as follows. Sutter’s request for terminating sanctions is DENIED. Sutter’s request for evidentiary sanctions is DENIED. Sutter’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff did not serve discovery responses in (partial) compliance with the Court’s orders issued March 19, 2024 until after this motion was filed, and even to this date Plaintiff has not fully complied with those orders. Sutter is awarded monetary sanctions of $2,692 against Plaintiff and his attorney, jointly and severally. In addition, by no later than August 9, 2024, Plaintiff shall serve a further verified substantive response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.7. Plaintiff’s response served on July 12, 2024 (see Exhibit J to Sutter’s reply papers) remains nonresponsive. By no later than August 9, 2024, Plaintiff shall serve a verification to his responses to Sutter’s First Set of Requests for Production. If Sutter is dissatisfied with the responses that Plaintiff served on July 12, 2024 (Exhibit I to Sutter’s reply papers), Sutter is free to file a motion to compel further responses. Finally, in its reply papers, Sutter complains that Plaintiff’s responses to Requests for Admissions Set One and Form Interrogatories Set Two are inadequate. Those discovery responses were not mentioned in Sutter’s moving papers and are therefore not a basis to grant this motion. Again, if Sutter is dissatisfied with Plaintiff’s responses to Requests for Admissions Set One and Form Interrogatories Set Two, Sutter can file a motion to compel further responses.

Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Friday, Jul-26-2024, Line 5, DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S Motion For Leave To Take Subsequent Deposition Of Plaintiff Mackenzie Woo (Code Civ. Proc. 2025.610(B)). Pro Tem Judge Aaron Minnis, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Granted. Within 10 days Plaintiff shall appear for deposition at a mutually convenient date and time to testify regarding the previously redacted information in the SFGH records. For the 9:00 a.m. Discovery calendar, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link (DISCOVERY, DEPARTMENT 302 DAILY AT 9:00 A.M.), or dial the corresponding number and use the meeting ID, and password for Discovery Department 302. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to aaron@minnisandsmallets.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must e-mail it to the Judge Pro Tem. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JPT)

Case Number: 22STCV25879 Hearing Date: July 26, 2024 Dept: 32 PLEASE NOTE : Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that partys intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court . TENTATIVE RULING DEPT : 32 HEARING DATE : July 26, 2024 CASE NUMBER : 22STCV25879 MOTIONS : Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Appear for a Physical Examination MOVING PARTY: Defendant Cludo K. Georgiadis OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff Aaron Patzan BACKGROUND This case involves alleged injuries from a fall. Defendant Cludo K. Georgiadis (Defendant) now moves to compel Plaintiff Aaron Patzans (Plaintiff) appearance at a physical examination. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. Plaintiff opposes. LEGAL STANDARD In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff, if both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive. (2) The examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).)¿¿ Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.410 provides: If a party is required to submit to a physical or mental examination under Articles 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210) or 3 (commencing with Section 2032.310), or under Section 2016.030, but fails to do so, the court, on motion of the party entitled to the examination, may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may, on motion of the party, impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). DISCUSSION Defendant brings this motion solely under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.410, which provides the authority to impose sanctions, but not to compel an appearance. Code of Civil Procedure § 2032.250, which does provide that a defendant may move for an order compelling compliance, also requires that the motion be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. No meet and confer efforts are described in the declaration attached to the motion. Accordingly, the motion is denied. The Court finds that the imposition of sanctions as to either party would be unjust and declines to award monetary sanctions. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Accordingly, Defendants motion to compel Plaintiffs physical examination is denied. Defendant shall provide notice of the Courts order and file a proof of service of such.

DENT VS. DENT Case Number: 22EA-0200030 This matter is trailing the Dent Trust matter. (Case No. CVPV21-0031299). That matter is being continued to September 30, 2024. Based on the foregoing, this matter is likewise continued to Monday, September 30, 2024, at 2:30 p.m. in Department 44 to trail the trust matter. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

S-CV-0050553 Dinnocenti, Mary Paulette vs. Sagora Senior Living, Inc. ** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouraged Appearance required.

20CV-00156 Renee Sanchez v. Felipe Rodriguez, et al. Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal-Notice of Settlement 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 settlement.