Document for RODRIGUEZ vs NEWHOFF, et al.

Case Number: 22SMCV01274 Hearing Date: July 26, 2024 Dept: I The court will discuss the matter with counsel. The court is unhappy that the documents remain outstanding even though the case is two years old. But the court also understands that such might well not be the case had the hospital provided a legible copy to begin with or earlier. The problem is that the courts trial calendar is tight, and the court cannot guarantee when a continued date might be, or even the year.

For Plaintiff Marco Castro: Alik Ekmekchyan For Defendant and Cross-Complainant The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC: Paul J. Lipman, Christopher A. Richardson For Cross-Defendant and Cross-Complainant IAM Pacific Wellness, Inc. dba Premier Fitness Service: Kari L. Probst RULING For the reasons set forth herein the hearing on the motion of The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, for Summary Judgment, is continued to August 14, 2024. Plaintiffs are to file and serve a revised opposition and a revised response to Defendant’s separate statement of undisputed material facts no later than August 31, 2024. A reply brief, if any, shall be filed and served by Defendant no later than August 9, 2024. The Trial Date of 9/4/24 is confirmed. Background This action commenced on September 21, 2022, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiff Marco Castro (“Castro”) against Defendant The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC (“Ritz-Carlton”), for personal injury based on negligence and premises liability. As alleged in the complaint: On April 8, 2022, Castro was injured as a result of Ritz-Carlton’s “failure to adequately maintain, inspect, repair, manage, supervise, and/or control” their premises. (Comp. ¶ L-1.) Specifically, the alleged injuries occurred when Castro was utilizing a weight bench. (Comp. ¶ GN-1.) On October 21, 2022, Ritz-Carlton filed an answer to the complaint asserting a general denial and 28 affirmative defenses. On January 24, 2023, Ritz-Carlton filed a cross-complaint against IAM Pacific Wellness, Inc. dba Premier Fitness Service (“Premier”) for apportionment of fault, indemnification, and declaratory relief. Premier then filed cross-complaints against Castro and Ritz-Carlton. Ritz-Carlton now moves for summary judgment against Castro on the grounds that “one or more elements of Plaintiff’s causes of action for General Negligence and Premises Liability . . . cannot be established, and that the elements of notice and causation cannot be established, so that judgment is appropriate on the entire Complaint. (Notice of Motion, p. 2., ll. 4-7.) Ritz-Carlton also argues that there was no defect in the property claimed to have caused Castro’s claimed injuries. Premier joins in the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that Ritz-Carlton fails to meet its burden and that there are triable issues of material fact that preclude the granting of summary judgment. Analysis Evidentiary Objections “In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the Court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. Objections to evidence that are not ruled on for purposes of the motion shall be preserved for appellate review.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) The Court will reserve ruling on the evidentiary objections pending further briefing by the parties. Standard on Summary Judgment A Defendant’s motion for summary judgment asks the Court to determine that the entire action has no merit, and to terminate the action without the necessity of a trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a).) The procedure enables the Court to look behind the pleadings to determine whether the party against whom the motion is directed has evidence to back up the claims. The Court must determine from the evidence presented that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) The moving party bears the burden of persuasion that that there is no triable issue of material fact, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 235 Cal.4th 826, 850.) Consequently, a Defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the cause of action in question cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense thereto. (Ibid.) The motion must be supported by evidentiary facts, not merely the ultimate facts. Further, conclusions of fact or law are not sufficient to support a motion for summary judgment. (Snider v. Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 741, 751.) Once a moving Defendant meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to produce evidence to prove the existence of a triable issue of fact regarding that element of its cause of action or the defense at issue in the motion, and if Plaintiff is unable to do so, Defendant will be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 35 Cal.4th 763, 780-781.) In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the trial Court must consider all of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c)) and must view the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 843.) In examining the sufficiency of the affidavits filed in connection with a summary judgment motion, those filed by the moving party are strictly construed, and those of the opposing party are liberally construed. (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 20-21.) In resolving the motion, the Court may not weigh the evidence. (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.) Rather, the role of the trial Court in resolving a summary judgment motion is to determine whether issues of fact exist, not to decide the merits of the issues. (Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107.) A triable issue of material fact exists only if the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.) Any doubts as to the propriety of granting the motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. (Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn., supra at p. 1107.) “ ‘Summary judgment law in this state . . . continues to require a Defendant moving for summary judgment to present evidence, and not simply point out that the Plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence. In this particular at least, it still diverges from federal law. For the Defendant must ‘ “support[ ]” ’ the ‘ “motion” ’ with evidence including ‘ “affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice” ’ must or may ‘ “be taken.” ’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b).) The Defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the Plaintiff’s cause of action. The Defendant may also present evidence that the Plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence - as through admissions by the Plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing. But, as Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson (9th Cir.2000) 212 F.3d 528 concludes, the Defendant must indeed present evidence [ ]: Whereas, under federal law, ‘ “pointing out through argument’ (id. at p. 532) may be sufficient . . ., under state law, it is not.’ ” [Citation.]” (Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 889-890.) Separate Statement “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(1), requires each motion for summary judgment to be accompanied by a separate statement “ ‘setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed. Each of the material facts stated shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence.’ ” California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d)(2)4 states: “ ‘The separate statement should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion.’ ” Under the Rules of Court, “ ‘ “Material facts’ “ are facts that relate to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion and that could make a difference in the disposition of the motion.’ ” (Rule 3.1350(a)(2).)” (Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 865, 850-851.) “The point of the separate statement is not to craft a narrative, but to be a concise list of the material facts and the evidence that supports them. “ ‘The separate statement serves two important functions in a summary judgment proceeding: It notifies the parties which material facts are at issue, and it provides a convenient and expeditious vehicle permitting the trial Court to hone in on the truly disputed facts.’ ” [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “The duty to comply with the law regarding separate statements applies to both sides of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication. The opposing party’s responses to the separate statement must be in good faith, responsive, and material. Responses should directly address the fact stated, and if that fact is not in dispute, the opposing party must so admit. It is completely unhelpful to evade the stated fact in an attempt to create a dispute where none exists.” (Ibid.) Castro’s responses to Ritz-Carlton’s separate statement of undisputed material facts are unhelpful. As what appears to have become common practice in opposing a motion for summary judgment, many of the responses are not made in good faith and appear to be attempts to create triable issues where none exist. For many of the facts, Plaintiff’s responses completely fail to specifically address what is being asserted, instead laying out lengthy recitations of “facts” that are not relevant to what is being stated. As just one example: Undisputed material fact No. 3 states, “The gym has exactly one ‘decline’ bench that has never been replaced or repaired, and Plaintiff was using it to do dumbbell presses while leaning back (declined) on the bench.” In response, Castro makes a meritless objection that the fact is overbroad, discusses the decline bench’s owner’s manual, discusses inspections, discusses Castro’s experts’ opinions regarding standards, etc. In total, the “response” consists of 22 paragraphs yet completely fails to address the stated fact. These types of responses are pervasive throughout and are improper. Plaintiff will be ordered to revise the response and provide material, good faith, responses that directly address the facts stated. If a fact is not reasonably subject to dispute, Castro must so admit. If the specific fact asserted is reasonably disputed, Castro should so state and reference the supporting admissible evidence. Negligence and Premises Liability “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.” (Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (a).) “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. [Citations.] Premises liability “ ‘ “is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises” ’ ”; accordingly, “ ‘ “mere possession with its attendant right to control conditions on the premises is a sufficient basis for the imposition of an affirmative duty to act.” ’ ” [Citations.] But the duty arising from possession and control of property is adherence to the same standard of care that applies in negligence cases.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158.) “Broadly speaking, premises liability alleges a Defendant property owner allowed a dangerous condition on its property or failed to take reasonable steps to secure its property against criminal acts by third parties.” (Delgado v. American Multi-Cinema (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1406, fn. 1.) “A Plaintiff seeking recovery for negligence against a landowner must establish sufficient facts or circumstances that support an inference of a breach of duty, to defeat a defense summary judgment motion. [Citation.] It is not enough to provide speculation or conjecture that a dangerous condition of property might have been present at the time of the accident.” (Howard v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 403, 421.) “The fact that an accident occurred does not give rise to a presumption that it was caused by negligence.” (Id. at p. 432.) Plaintiff’s entire opposition, as well as the opinions of his expert, presume the existence of a dangerous condition. Yet, Castro has provided no evidence of a dangerous condition. Ritz Carlton, on the other hand, has provided evidence that there was no dangerous condition present at the time of the accident, which contributed to Castro being injured. If there was no dangerous condition of the property that caused or contributed to his injuries, at the time of the accident, there is no viable premises liability case against Ritz Carlton. However, Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff’s expert have declared under penalty of perjury that there was an inspection scheduled for July 16, 2024. That date is after the date that the opposition was filed but has since passed. Plaintiff’s counsel states that Plaintiff needs additional time. (Ekmekchyan Dec., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) “If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the Court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.” (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (h).) While the Court is not pleased that Plaintiff did not inspect the weight bench previously, the Court finds that the inspection should take place, and any relevant report prepared, before the Court rules on the motion for summary judgment. The continued hearing date will be less than 30 days before the date set for trial. The Court finds good cause, based on the above, to hear the motion less than 30 days before the date of trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (a)(3). In the meantime, the parties are strongly encouraged to engage in meaningful settlement negotiations. While deferring its analysis of the majority of the arguments raised in the motion and opposition, the Court will note that res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable to the current action. “ ‘Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence allowing an inference of negligence from proven facts. [Citations.] It is based on a theory of ‘ “probability” ’ where there is no direct evidence of Defendant's conduct, [citations] permitting a common sense inference of negligence from the happening of the accident. [Citations.] The rule thus assists Plaintiffs in negligence cases in regard to the production of evidence. [¶] The applicability of the doctrine depends on whether it can be said the accident was probably the result of negligence by someone and Defendant was probably the person who was responsible. [Citations.] In the absence of such probabilities, there is no basis for an inference of negligence serving to take the place of evidence of some specific negligent act or omission. [Citation.] [¶] A Plaintiff must produce the following evidence in order to receive the benefit of the doctrine: 1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; 2) it must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the Defendant; and 3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the Plaintiff. [Citations.]’ ” [Citation.]” (Scott v. Rayhrer (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1535, 1540.) As will be further explained following further briefing by the parties, Plaintiff can not satisfy the three prongs, to establish res ipsa loquitur, set forth above.

23CV-00271 Mehki Bryant v. Thomas Wilson, et al Motion by Mercy Medical Center, Mercd to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Specification of Damages, Request for Production of Documents Set One, and that Requests for Admission be Deemed Admitted by Plaintiff The unopposed Motion by Mercy Medical Center, Mercd to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Specification of Damages, Request for Production of Documents Set One, and that Requests for Admission be Deemed Admitted by Plaintiff is GRANTED. The Motion that Requests for Admission be deemed admitted is GRANTED. The Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Specification of Damages, and Request for Production of Documents Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve, without objection, verified code compliant responses and any responsive documents by August 30, 2024.

21CV-00915 Julie Bulosan v. Kaylee Doe, et al. Motion for Mandatory Relief Pursuant to CCP § 473(b) Counsel for Plaintiff Julie Ann Soriano Bulosan provides a declaration of fault due to counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excuseable neglect with respect to the December 22, 2023 Order that Plaintiff pay $920 in discovery sanctions and asserts that such relief is mandatory under CCP § 473(b). Defendants assert (1) that CCP § 473(b) is inapplicable to discovery orders, (2) the motion is untimely as it was brought more than six months from the date of the order, and (3) the affidavit of fault does not establish mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excuseable neglect. The motion for relief is DENIED. This Court agrees with Defendant that (1) that CCP § 473(b) is inapplicable to discovery orders, and (2) the motion is untimely as it was brought more than six months from the date of the order. Furthermore, even if relief was mandatory under CCP § 473(b) this court may grant relief under conditions as may be just. There is no question that discovery responses were substantially delayed and that several motions have been necessary for Defendants to obtain the discovery requested or the sanctions awarded. If Plaintiff’s counsel believes that is client should not be required to pay sanctions, then counsel has the option of paying the sanctions himself as there has been no showing that the award of sanctions or the amount was unreasonable or excessive, only that Plaintiff herself was not at fault. Thus the court concludes that while even if relief were granted, the conditions that would be just would require an order that Plaintiff’s counsel should pay the sanctions instead of Plaintiff herself. Motion for Enforcement of Monetary Sanctions The Motion for Enforcement of Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in Part. Additional Sanctions in the amount of $500 are awarded against both Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally. The request for additional monetary santions in excess of $500 ia DENIED.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER BALTAZAR VS COUNTY OF RESPONSES TO SPECIAL CVRI2303050 RIVERSIDE INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE BY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Tentative Ruling: Motion continued to September 30, 2024, 8:30am, D-4.

Case Number: 22STCV28462 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 : 22STCV28462 MOTIONS : Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Nancy Pogue OPPOSING PARTY: BACKGROUND Plaintiff Nancy Pogue (Plaintiff) moves to compel Defendant Target Corporation (Defendant) to serve verified responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed. LEGAL STANDARD Interrogatories If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless [t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance and [t]he partys failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 (a)(1), (a)(2).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.) If a motion to compel responses is filed, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against the losing party 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. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 (c).) Further, [t]he 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) DISCUSSION Here, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant on February 29, 2024. (Sarukhanyan Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Responses were due April 1, 2024. ( Id. ) Plaintiff then granted extensions to May 26, 2024. ( Id. ¶ 4.) Since then, no responses have been served. (Id. ¶ 6.) Accordingly, the motion to compel is granted. Plaintiff requests $2,065 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record. This represents an hourly rate of $400 and the $65 filing fee. (Decl. ¶ 7.) The Court finds sanctions are warranted, but the amount requested is excessive given the type of motion, the lack of an opposition, and the fact counsel can appear at the hearing remotely. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the total amount of $665 (1.5 hour of attorney time and the filing fee). CONCLUSION AND ORDER Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide verified responses, without objection, within 30 days. The Court further GRANTS Plaintiffs request for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record in the reduced amount of $665 . Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of this order. Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Courts order and file a proof of service of such.

2024-148 Galvin Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories 7/26/2024 Defendant brings a Motion to Compel Plaintiff Arturo Galvin's Responses to Defendant's Form Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions. Having read the moving papers and noting no opposition has been filed, the court issues the following tentative ruling: No opposition on file. On March 15, 2024, Defendant propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff Arturo Galvin. Responses to said discovery was due April 19, 2024. No responses were provided. On April 26, 2024, Defense Counsel sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiff's counsel regarding the overdue responses. The same meet and confer letter was resent on May 7, 2024. Plaintiff did not respond to the meet and confer attempts. As of the filing of the motion plaintiff has not provided code compliant responses. The Motion to Compel is granted. Plaintiff must respond to the authorized method of discovery. The request for sanctions is granted because plaintiff must respond to authorized methods of discovery, in addition, plaintiff must respond to meet and confer efforts. The failure to do so is a misuse of the Discovery Act. The court finds the requested hourly rate of $187.56 is very reasonable. The court awards 3.32 hours as reasonable time to engage in meet and confer and bring motion. The court also awards filing fee of $60.00. Therefore, the court awards discovery sanctions against plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $619.71. The court will sign the order presented with moving papers. WATERS 7/25/2026 Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: 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, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name 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 conduct a remote appearance, if applicable, follow the instructions below. There is a dedicated conference bridge lines for Dept. 11B. Call into dedicated conference bridge line at the time set for the hearing. To attend the remote hearing in Dept. 11B: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # 6941 and Pin # 5564. The courtroom clerk will make announcements and the Judge will call the calendar. Please mute your phones when you are not speaking, and remember to unmute your phone when you are speaking. At this time, we are not able to provide information over the phone. To communicate with the Courtroom Clerk of Dept. 11B, please email questions to civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org, indicating in the title of the email the Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name. A Courtroom Clerk will return your email. To ensure the Court has your most recent contact information, if you have not already done so, please register your email address and mobile number on the Court’s website under Online Services, Attorney Registration. (You do not have to be an attorney to register.) We thank you for your cooperation, assistance, patience and flexibility

23CV034015: WILLIAMS vs MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Riaz Patras (Defendant) in Department 17 Tentative Ruling - 07/23/2024 Frank Roesch The Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT BIG DOG CITY CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS filed by Riaz Patras on 06/21/2024 is Granted. Defendant Riaz Patras’ (“Patras”) Unopposed Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendant Big Dog City Corporation (“Big Dog”) is GRANTED. Big Dog is ordered to serve verified code-compliant discovery responses without objections to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) without objections on Patras within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subds. (a); (b).) As this motion was unopposed, no sanctions are issued. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court. HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV034015: WILLIAMS vs MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Riaz Patras (Defendant) in Department 17