Document for Hussain, Mohammed vs. Ginden, Benjamin

BURT ORTWICK MOTION TO STAY BY GREGORY J. CVSW2310633 HOLDINGS, INC. VS PRUDHOMME, PRUDHOMME PRUDHOMME ASSOCIATES C.P.A., INC. Tentative Ruling: The Motion is DENIED. The court does not see any prejudice in denying the Motion. The key issues for the case are heavily entwined with the IRS decision. If the IRS accepts Burk Ortwick’s amended tax returns and issues its requested refund, the only damages Plaintiffs can prove are amounts paid to Defendants and costs to correct Defendants’ mistakes. If the IRS rejects Burk Ortwick’s amended tax returns and refuses to issue a refund, Plaintiffs’ ability to prove causation and/or damages may hinge on the IRS’ reasons for the rejection, e.g., whether the rejection is based on errors made by Defendants or for some other reason. A stay appears pragmatic and prudent, pending the IRS’ determination of Plaintiffs’ amended tax returns. Although some issues of liability (e.g., duty and breach) can be litigated now, Plaintiffs concede that the full extent of Defendants’ liability cannot be “realized until the amended returns are processed by the IRS.” (Opposition, p. 6.) The calling of two different panels for this case is illogical when the causation evidence is so intermixed with the damages. It will not promote judicial economy.

WRENNE, ET AL. VS. J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC, ET AL. Case Number: 24CV-0204643 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Strike: Defendant Neilson Motor, Co. moves to strike the punitive damage allegations from the Complaint. Merits of Motion: A motion to strike can be used to attack the entire pleading, or any part thereof, including single words or phrases. Stearns Ranchos v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway (1981) 19 Cal.App.3d 24. It is proper for the Court to strike any irrelevant, false or improper matter. CCP § 436(a). The Court can also strike any part of a pleading that is not drawn or filed in conformity with California law. CCP § 436(b). The proper procedure for testing the adequacy of punitive damages is a motion to strike. Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163-64. Punitive damages require a showing of malice, oppression or fraud. Civil Code § 3294. Malice is defined as conduct intended to cause injury or despicable conduct which is carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. Civ. Code Section 3294(c)(1). Oppression is defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” Civ. Code Section 3294(c)(2). Finally, fraud is defined as “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” Civ. Code Section 3294(c)(3). The term “despicable conduct” as used by in the definitions of “malice” and “oppression” is not defined by statute. Case authority has described “despicable conduct” as conduct that is so "vile, base and contemptible" as to be "looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people." Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210-12. The complaint must allege ultimate facts of oppression, fraud, or malice. Cyrus v. Haveson (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 306, 316-17. In this instance, the Complaint contains conclusory allegations of despicable conduct carried out in a conscious and deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of others, and in a willful and reckless manner….” As for specific allegations that could support this conclusion, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, along with the other named Defendants, had control over the subject location where Decedent Kevin Wrenne was fatally stabbed. Plaintiffs allege the Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to discover and prevent criminal activity on the property. In support, Plaintiffs alleges that there were numerous responses to the subject property by law enforcement over the years. They also allege that employees from the business located at the subject property complained of insufficient lighting in the outdoor area. The Court finds the allegations insufficient to establish the required malice or oppression. The specific allegations would appear to support negligence and possibly even gross negligence but do not rise to the level of the required “conscious disregard” to support malice and oppression. The conduct described is not so "vile, base and contemptible" as to be "looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people." Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210-12. The motion is GRANTED with leave to amend. A proposed order was lodged with the Court and will be modified to conform to the Court’s final ruling. Plaintiffs are granted 15 days leave from service of the notice of entry of order to file an Amended Complaint. The Court note that there are multiple pending motions attacking the Complaint which would be made moot by the filing of the Amended Complaint. The Court intends on dropping those matters from calendar as moot, without prejudice to the moving parties to re-file them against the Amended Complaint. ****************************************************************************** 9:00 a.m. Review Hearings ****************************************************************************** DOBBINS, ET AL. VS. CARE OPTIONS MANAGEMENT

Case Number: 20STCV38944 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 : 20STCV38944 MOTIONS : Motion to Order a Mental Examination MOVING PARTY: Defendants County of Los Angeles, Justin Ortiz, and the Los Angeles Dodgers Foundation OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff Adrian Hernandez MOTION On October 13, 2020, Plaintiff Adrian Hernandez, a minor (Plaintiff) filed a complaint alleging injuries after being struck in the face with a baseball bat on June 21, 2019. Defendants County of Los Angeles, Justin Ortiz, and the Los Angeles Dodgers Foundation (Defendants) now move to compel Plaintiff to submit to a mental examination with Lev Gottlieb, Ph.D, a licensed neuropsychologist, on August 13, 2024. Plaintiff opposes. No reply has been filed. LEGAL STANDARD If any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court. A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subds. (a)-(b).) The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a); see also Sporich v. Superior Court (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 422, 427 [the good cause which must be shown should be such that will satisfy an impartial tribunal that the request may be granted without abuse of the inherent rights of the adversary].) A showing of good cause generally requires that the party produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ( Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.) And [a] party who chooses to allege that he has mental and emotional difficulties can hardly deny his mental state is in controversy. ( Id. at p. 839.) The examination will be limited to whatever condition is in controversy in the action.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. §2032.020(a).)¿ This means the examination must be directly related to the specific injury or condition that is the subject of the litigation.¿ ( Roberts v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 330, 337.)¿ Often, a party's pleadings put his or her mental or physical condition in controversy ... as when a plaintiff claims continuing mental or physical injury resulting from defendant's acts: A party who chooses to allege that he has mental and emotional difficulties can hardly deny his mental state is in controversy.¿ (See Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 837, wherein the plaintiff claimed ongoing emotional distress from sexual harassment by former employer.)¿ Discovery responses can also frame the issues regarding the injuries and damages alleged.¿¿ If the place of the examination is more than 75 miles from the residence of the person to be examined, an order to submit to it shall be entered only if both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The court determines that there is good cause for the travel involved. (2) The order is conditioned on the advancement by the moving party of the reasonable expenses and costs to the examinee for travel to the place of examination. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.320(e).) MEET AND CONFER The Declaration of Allen L. Thomas, Defendants counsel, states he sent a letter to Plaintiffs counsel, asking to stipulate to the examination. (Thomas Decl. ¶ 7.) No further effort to meet and confer is described. DISCUSSION Plaintiff claims injuries such as mental pain, anxiety, emotional distress, Bells palsy of the right side of the face, chronic headaches, and depressive disorder. Additionally, Defendants note that after the injury in this case, on August 25, 2021, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and was ejected from the vehicle. Dr. Gottliebs office is in Santa Monica and Plaintiff lives in Palm Springs. The distance between the two is 119 miles, which is over the 75-mile limit. However, Defendants contend good cause exists to allow the examination since Plaintiff filed this action in Los Angeles County where the incident occurred and was living in the City of Los Angeles when the incident occurred. (Motion, 11.) Defendants also contend Dr. Gottlieb specializes in working with children and adolescents and can only conduct examinations in his office. They also contend they will pay the reasonable travel costs. In opposition, Plaintiff does not argue that a mental examination is unwarranted but argues that Defendants have not shown good cause for the additional examination distance. Plaintiff argues he is suffering from injuries from the August 2021 motor vehicle accident and would have difficulty enduring the travel time. (Opp., 7.) The Court agrees that Defendants have failed to sufficiently describe why Dr. Gottlieb is necessary for the examination. For instance, Defendants provide no facts describing efforts to retain a closer neuropsychologist. Additionally, the motion does not set forth the scope and nature of the examination with particularity. When seeking leave to conduct a mental examination, the party seeking leave must state the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination fully and in detail. This means listing each by name. ( Carpenter v. Superior Court ¿(2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 260.) In Carpenter , the court discussed the heightened risk of intrusion that a mental examination could pose. ( Id . at 261 [Requiring the court to identify the permissible diagnostic tests and procedures, by name, confirms that the court has weighed the risks of unwarranted intrusion upon the plaintiff against the defendant's need for a meaningful opportunity to test the plaintiff's claims of physical or mental injury.].) Additionally, the specificity and clarity of the order aids the examiner in complying with the parameters imposed by the court. ( Id .)¿¿ ¿ ¿ The motion does not specifically state the diagnostic procedures that will be implemented. Instead, the declaration of Lev Gottlieb states the specific tests to be administered will be determined once records have been fully reviewed. (Gottlieb Decl. ¶ 8.) However, it is unclear what additional records are needed since Dr. Gottlieb also states he has reviewed Plaintiffs form interrogatories and certain medical records. (See id. ¶ 3.) Therefore, because good cause has not been shown for the examination location, and Defendants have insufficiently described the tests to be conducted, the motion is denied. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Accordingly, Defendants Motion to Order a Mental Examination of Plaintiff is DENIED. Defendants shall provide notice of the Courts order and file a proof of service of such.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT, CVSW2205101 GALLEPOSO VS WATKINS DEFAULT BY UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED in part. The default judgment is set aside since Defendant-in-Intervention has filed an Answer and is not in default and default judgment cannot be entered against any jointly liable Defendants. USAA has not established any basis to set aside the default against Defendant since that default is not binding on USAA and no judgment can be entered. The requests for sanctions are 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.

23CV036124: DASILVA, et al. vs BASCO DRYWALL & PAINTING CO., et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff Alvarino DaSilva to submit to BAP1 genetic testing; filed by HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Defendant) in Department 18 Tentative Ruling - 07/23/2024 Patrick McKinney The Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff Alvarino DaSilva to submit to BAP1 genetic testing; filed by HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Defendant) scheduled for 07/25/2024 is continued to 08/27/2024 at 01:30 PM in Department 18 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse . The Court CONTINUES defendant Honeywell International Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel plaintiff Alvarino DaSilva’s (“Plaintiff”) production of a blood or saliva sample for testing to determine if he has a germline/inherited BAP1 gene mutation to Tuesday, August 27, 2024. There are a number of defects in Defendant’s evidentiary submission described below, which Defendant must correct before the Court will consider Defendant’s Motion on the merits. Much of Defendant’s moving evidence is inadmissible. The moving declaration of Defendant’s counsel Gilliam Stewart (“Stewart Dec.”) identifies approximately twenty purported peer- reviewed medical journal articles as exhibits thereto. However, the Stewart Declaration lays no foundation for the declarant’s personal knowledge that the documents are what he purports them to be. Further, Plaintiffs in Opposition object to these documents as hearsay. The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiffs’ hearsay objections to the purported medical journal articles. Although Defendant’s medical expert witness may rely on hearsay documents of this sort (medical journal articles) in formulating his expert medical opinions, the moving Chodosh Declaration does not contain proper citations to most of these purported medical journal articles. (See Defendant’s Index of Exhibits (“DIOE”) Exh. 1 (“Chodosh Dec.”)).) Further, although the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection that the Chodosh Declaration violates CRC Rule 3.1115 because the Chodosh Declaration is a case-specific declaration (see Chodosh Dec. ¶ 12), the Chodosh Declaration is not properly sworn pursuant to CCP § 2015.5 and Kulshrestha v. First Union Comm’l Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601, 610. Dr. Chodosh’s most highly pertinent expert medical opinions stated at ¶¶ 23(b) and (c) of his declaration also do not contain an adequate foundation, specifically citations to published peer- reviewed medical journal articles stating that renal cell carcinoma is “one of the defining tumor types that occurs in individuals with the BAP1 cancer syndrome” and that Mr. DaSilva’s purported medical history of three different cancers (mesothelioma, renal cell carcinoma and duodenal non-hodgkins lymphoma) are indicative of BAP1 cancer syndrome/cancer predisposition syndrome. Finally, even if the twenty medical journal articles were admissible, the Court lacks the judicial resources to review them all where Defendant has not provided exhibit and page citations so that the Court may expeditiously confirm whether the evidence supports Defendant’s factual claims. Proper citation to specific evidence is mandatory for parties seeking relief from this Court. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV036124: DASILVA, et al. vs BASCO DRYWALL & PAINTING CO., et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff Alvarino DaSilva to submit to BAP1 genetic testing; filed by HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Defendant) in Department 18 Defendant shall serve and file any revised papers on Plaintiffs at least sixteen (16) court days in advance of the continued 8/27/2024 hearing date. Plaintiffs’ supplemental Opposition papers and Defendant’s supplemental Reply shall be served and filed pursuant to CCP § 1005(b) with respect to the continued hearing date. Plaintiffs’ supplemental opposition papers should not re- state arguments already made in Plaintiffs’ initial Opposition papers. CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 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.

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 24, 2024, Line 1. PLAINTIFF JANET TAPIA's Motion For Order Waiving Of Posting Bond For Defendant'S Progress Foundation. Ordered off calendar; motion already addressed at prior hearing and entire action is stayed per CCP 391.6. =(302/RBU)

Case Number: 21STCV27576 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 : 21STCV27576 MOTIONS : Petition for Minors Compromise MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Deborah Carson OPPOSING PARTY: Unopposed The Court has reviewed the petition filed on July 3, 2024 by Petitioner Deborah Carson (Petitioner) on behalf of Claimant Chase Carson, age 11. The Court denies the petition without prejudice for the following reason: The Court previously instructed Petitioner to complete item 10c describing the terms of the settlement. (See Min. Order, 7/1/24.) In this revised petition, item 10c is not complete. Petitioner has cured all other defects identified in the previous petition. Accordingly, the Court denies the petition without prejudice. Petitioner shall give notice and file a proof of service of such.