Document for Patient Centric Of Martha's Vineyard Ltd. D/B/A Island Times vs. Cannabis Control Commission

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL CVSW2303245 MORA VS DPEP, INC. INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY JOSHUA MORA, SHANNON MORA Tentative Ruling: Take the hearing on the motion off calendar. The parties are ordered to meet and confer further. If the parties are unable to resolve their differences, then they should request an IDC (Informal Discovery Conference). If after an IDC the court is unable to help the parties resolve any remaining issues, then the court will re-calendar the hearing on the motion. A motion to compel further responses to SPROGs must be accompanied by a declaration describing in detail the reasonable and good-faith efforts that each party has made to resolve informally each issue presented by the motion. (C.C.P. §§2016.040, C.C.P. § 2030.300(b)(1).) Each party must “confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney,” and make a “reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery”; failure by any party to do so is a misuse of the discovery process. (C.C.P. 2023.010(i).) The purpose of the meet and confer requirement is to force lawyers to reexamine their positions, and to narrow their discovery disputes to the irreducible minimum, before calling upon the court to resolve the matter. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016-17.) Evaluating whether a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to meet and confer was made requires an “evaluation of whether, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the discovering party, additional effort appears likely to bear fruit.” (Clement v. Alegra (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) The level of effort that is reasonable is different in different circumstances and may vary with the prospects for success, but the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs’ counsel sent one letter to FCA’s counsel, who responded and also extended Plaintiffs’ motion to compel deadline. (Decl. of Armando Lopez [“Lopez Decl.”] at ¶¶ 6-8.) Plaintiffs made no other attempts to resolve these matters before filing the motion. Had the parties properly met and conferred, at least some of the issues in this motion likely could have been resolved. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiffs did not meet their statutory obligation to make a good faith attempt to resolve the issues raised by the motion.

Case Number: 23BBCV01735 Hearing Date: July 26, 2024 Dept: NCB Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles North Central District Department B sargon restoration, inc. , et al. , Plaintiffs, v. morrison studios, ltd. lp , Defendant. Case No.: 23BBCV01735 Hearing Date: July 26, 2024 [ TENTATIVE] order RE: Motion for attorneys fees pursuant to CCP § 8488 in the amount of $4,550.00 BACKGROUND A. Allegations Plaintiffs Sargon Restoration, Inc. (Restoration), Environmental Abatement, Inc. (Abatement), and L.Y. Environmental, Inc. (L.Y.) allege that they each entered into an agreement with Defendant Morrison Studios, Ltd. L.P. (Defendant) by which Plaintiffs each agreed to furnish certain labor, services, equipment, and materials for a work of improvement at the property located at 5001 Lankershim Boulevard, North Hollywood, CA 91601. Plaintiffs allege that they performed all conditions and obligations required, but Defendants breached their contractual obligations by failing and refusing to compensate each of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that the reasonable value and market price of said labor, services, equipment, and materials when provided and at all relevant times herein mentioned and now is as follows: (1) the sum of $378,950.05 to Restoration for fire and water restoration &; (2) the sum of $16,000.00 to Abatement for construction and fire/water restoration &; and (3) the sum of $6,375.00 to L.Y. for environmental testing&. (FAC, ¶13, Exs. B-D.) The first amended complaint (FAC), filed July 2, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of written contract (Restoration); (2) breach of oral contract (Abatement); (3) breach of oral contract (L.Y.); (4) Quantum Meruit (Restoration); (5) Quantum Meruit (Abatement); and (6) Quantum Meruit (L.Y.). B. Relevant Background and Motion on Calendar On April 30, 2024, Defendant filed a petition for removal of the mechanics lien on the property located at 5001 Lankershim Blvd., North Hollywood, CA 91601. On May 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief. On May 16, 2024, Defendant filed a reply brief. On May 31, 2024, the Court granted Defendants petition to release the property from the mechanics lien. On May 31, 2024, the Court signed the Order on the Petition to Remove Mechanics Lien from Property Pursuant to Civil Code, § 8480. LEGAL STANDARD Civil Code, § 8488 states: (a) At the hearing both (1) the petition [for an order to release the property from the claim of lien] and (2) the issue of compliance with the service and date for hearing requirements of this article are deemed controverted by the claimant. The petitioner has the initial burden of producing evidence on those matters. The petitioner has the burden of proof as to the issue of compliance with the service and date for hearing requirements of this article. The claimant has the burden of proof as to the validity of the lien. (b) If judgment is in favor of the petitioner, the court shall order the property released from the claim of lien. (c) The prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees . (Civ. Code, § 8488 [emphasis added].) DISCUSSION Defendant moves for attorneys fees in the amount of $4,550.00 pursuant to Civil Code, § 8488(c). [1] In opposition, Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendant succeeded on the merits of its petition but argue that the attorneys fees claimed are excessive. (Opp. at p.2.) Plaintiff does not take issue with defense counsels hourly rate of $350, but argues that the 13 hours she spent on a simple petition in light of her accomplished experience is unreasonable when Defendants motion to remove the lien and the motion for attorneys fees appear to be forms that were reproduced with dates and information to fill in. ( Id. ) As stated above, the parties do not dispute that Defendant prevailed on the petition for removal of the mechanics lien. As such, Defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees from Plaintiffs. The only issue is whether the $4,550.00 requested by Defendant is reasonable in amount. Defense counsel, Araksya Boyadzhyan, provides her declaration in support of the motion for attorneys fees. Ms. Boyadzhyan states that her hourly rate is currently $350/hour. (Boyadzhyan Decl., ¶5.) She details her legal experience; she was admitted into practice in Claifornia in December 2014 and spearheaded Mgdesyan Law Firms civil litigation department. ( Id. , ¶¶6-7.) She states that she spent 13 hours on this action, which included: 0 .5 hour expended drafting correspondence and meeting and conferring with Plaintiffs counsel regarding the removal of the mechanics lien; .4 hours researching in preparing the Petition; 3 hours expending in drafting the Petition to Remove the Mechanics Lien, the Request for Judicial Notice, and my declaration in support of the Petition; 2 hours expended on researching and drafting the Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to the Petition; 1 hour to attend the hearing on the Petition; 0.5 hour expended drafting the Proposed Order on Removal of the Mechanics Lien; and 2 hours expended in researching and drafting the instant motion for attorneys fees. ( Id. , ¶8.) Ms. Boyadzhyan anticipates spending additional time if the motion for attorneys fees is opposed. ( Id. , ¶9.) Plaintiffs argue that Ms. Boyadzhyans 4 hours spent in researching to prepare the petition and 3 hours to draft the petition are unreasonable in light of Plaintiffs belief that the petition was clearly a form documents with dates and names filled in. (Opp. at p.2.) They also argue that spending 2 hours on this motion for attorneys fees is also unreasonable when it is a form motion with stock declarations with blanks filled in. ( Id. ) The Court finds that the time spent by Ms. Boyadzhyan to research and prepare the Petition is not unreasonable. The Court will not make a determination regarding whether the Petition or this attorneys fees motion were forms as claimed by Plaintiffs. Regardless of whether they were form documents, Ms. Boyadzhyan would still have had to have expended time to research the law and the facts of the particular case before her, prepare the Petition and attorneys fees motion, and draft the requisite accompanying papers (declarations, requests for judicial notice, etc.). The expenditure of 13 hours for two law and motion matters is not unreasonably high. Ms. Boyadzhyan has adequately explained the time she has spent and the Court sees no grounds to reduce the fees. The requested sum is reasonable for the work done on the Petition and the attorneys fees motion and is not excessive in amount. The motion for attorneys fees is granted in the amount of $4,550.00. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant Morrison Studios, Ltd. L.P.s motion for attorneys fees is granted in the amount of $4,550.00. Defendant shall provide notice of this order. DATED: July 26, 2024 ___________________________ John J. Kralik Judge of the Superior Court [1] (The Court notes that Defendants make reference to the Code of Civil Procedure, § 8488, but the correct section is Civil Code , § 8488(c).)

Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Wednesday, Jul-24-2024, Line 2, PLAINTIFF GUADALUPE AGBABIAKA's Motion To Compel Further Responses To Request For Production From Defendant Ford Motor Company, And Request For Sanctions. Off calendar per notice of settlement of entire case filed July 11, 2024. (D302)

23CV028479: NOTARO vs REYNOLDS, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant Janelle P. Santi's Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 25 Tentative Ruling - 07/19/2024 Jenna Whitman The Hearing on Demurrer Defendant Janelle P. Santi's Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint scheduled for 07/25/2024 is continued to 11/21/2024 at 03:00 PM in Department 25 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse .

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Tuesday, July 23, 2024, Line 5. DEFENDANT SUNRUN INC.'s MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT/DEFAULT JUDGMENT/LEAVE TO DEFEND. The motion is granted as unopposed. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely 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, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org 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. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or 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/CK)

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Thursday, July 25, 2024, Line 13. MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL AS TO DEFENDANT. Hearing required re apparent lack of emergency circumstances. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely 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, or dial the corresponding phone number. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or 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/RBU)

DATE: 07/19/24 TIME: 1:30 P.M. DEPT: E CASE NO: CIV2202485 PRESIDING: HON. ANDREW SWEET REPORTER: CLERK: PLAINTIFF: LELAND SPELMAN, ET AL vs. DEFENDANT: STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: 1) MOTION — RELIEVE COUNSEL 2) CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 3) MOTION — RELIEVE COUNSEL RULING The following persons are ordered to appear: 1 Merlin Law Group (counsel for Leland Spelman, Linnea Carlson, and Julian Spelman) 2. Leland Spelman, Linnea Carlson, and Julian Spelman All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11. The Zoom appearance information for July, 2024 is as follows: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1605153328?pwd=eUU1 OE9BTG5tWHgrOFNK Mm Vvd2tFQT09 Meeting ID: 160 515 3328 Passcode: 360075 If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling 1-669-254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: marin,.courts.ca.go

22CV01122 KC DBW D1, LLC v. SC BLOOM NETWORK, INC., WILLIAM JOSEPH SUMP, II (UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF KC DBW D1, LLC’S MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CCP §664.6 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 and the stipulation entered between the parties (Gallagher Declaration, Exhibit A), judgment in the sum of $63,959.09 ($47,180.00 plus late penalties of $4,718, and costs and fees of $12,061.09) will be entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant SC Bloom Network, Inc. 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.