23CV032669: CURRY vs AAA-CSAA 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial filed by Elizabeth Curry (Plaintiff) in Department 25 Tentative Ruling - 07/25/2024 Jenna Whitman The Motion to Continue Trial Date filed by Elizabeth Curry on 07/18/2024 is Denied. This case was dismissed on February 6, 2024. Plaintiff now moves to continue trial. There is no pending litigation before the court, much less a trial date. The motion is denied. This ruling has been contested. Hearing has been continued to 08/02/24 at 3:30 PM. If you plan to appear in person, the hearing will be heard in Wiley W. Manuel Courthouse 661 Washington Street, Oakland, CA 94607 5th floor Department 109. The zoom information for this hearing is below: Meeting ID: 161 8066 1142 Passcode: 5805 --- One tap mobile +16692545252,,16180661142# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16180661142# US (US Spanish Line) --- Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) • +1 415 449 4000 US (US Spanish Line) • +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) • +1 551 285 1373 US (New Jersey) • +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) • +1 646 964 1167 US (US Spanish Line) • 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Find your local number: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/u/acJeuPd9Xq

DOE vs PALM SPRINGS Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Guardian Ad CVPS2204948 UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Litem to Appear for Deposition Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling. A hearing will be conducted.

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Friday, July 26, 2024, Line 16. DEFENDANT BATH AUTHORITY LLC DBA DREAMLINE's MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT. Defendant Bath Authority LLC dba Dreamline's unopposed Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from the Complaint is granted. Friday's Law & Motion Calendar will be called out of Dept. 301. Anyone intending to appear in person should report to Dept. 301. However, anyone intending to appear remotely should use the regular Zoom information for Dept. 302's Law & Motion Calendar for 9:30 a.m. 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 defendant 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/RCE)

GJETLEY VS. SANDOVAL Case Number: 23CV-0203634 Tentative Ruling on Discovery Motions: Defendant Gary Sandoval moves for an order deeming Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One admitted based on a lack of response from Plaintiff. In a separate motion, Defendant moves for an order compelling responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One. The motions were originally noticed for a hearing on June 10, 2024. On June 10, 2024, the Court continued the hearing to today’s date because Plaintiff Lester Gjetley had filed a document titled “Plaintiff Lester Gjetley Response to Motion and Discovery” that included a copy of what appear to be verified responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff was ordered to serve Defendant with these responses. It is unclear if that has occurred. On July 15, 2024, as directed by the Court, Defendant filed a Brief Statement Regarding Outstanding Discovery Issues. This Statement is not supported by evidence. There are procedural and evidentiary defects on both sides of these motions. The Court exercises its discretion to consider the merits of the motions despite these defects. A party has thirty days after service to respond to a Request for Production, Request for Admissions, Form Interrogatories, or Special Interrogatories. See CCP §§ 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a), and 2030.260(a). Not providing a timely response to propounded discovery results in a waiver of objections. CCP §§ 2031.300(a). 2033.280(a), and 2030.290(a). If a party to whom a discovery request is directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding discovery may move for an order compelling a response. CCP §§ 2031.300(b) and 2030.290(c). For Request for Admissions specifically, the party can move for an Order that the Request for Admissions be deemed admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” CCP § 2033.280(c). Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts. Requests for Admissions. Plaintiff filed verified response to Requests for Admissions, Set One on May 28, 2024. Plaintiff was ordered to serve these on Defendant. It is unclear whether Plaintiff did so as there is no proof of service. However, the Court made it clear in its June 10, 2024, tentative ruling that a response to Requests for Admissions, Set One had been filed. Even if these responses may have not been served prior to the June 10, 2024, hearing, they were filed and available in the court file. Defendant presented no argument regarding whether the Requests for Admissions responses were in substantial compliance. As Plaintiff filed verified responses prior to the hearing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for the Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One to be admitted. It is mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction on the party whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion. CCP § 2033.280(c). The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $585 which is comprised of a $60 filing fee and three hours of attorney time at $175 per hour. Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Answer Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Respond to Request for Production. Form Interrogatories. It appears from Defendant’s Statement filed on July 15, 2024 that verified responses were provided as Defendant wrote, “but his verified response to Form Interrogatory 11.0 omits any mention of this suit.” A lack of service of verified responses is what the original motion alleged. If Plaintiff has served verified responses and Defendant deems them to be insufficient, Defendant may file a motion compelling further responses after sufficient meet and confer efforts. In order for the Court to rule on such a motion, the Form Interrogatories and responses would need to be provided to the Court. As it appears that Plaintiff responded to Form Interrogatories, Set One, the Court DENIES this request as moot. If the Court is incorrect and Plaintiff did not serve responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Defendant may raise the issue at the hearing. Special Interrogatories. Verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One were filed by Plaintiff on May 28, 2024. As discussed above regarding the Requests for Admissions, these were in the court file. If Defendant deems the response to be insufficient, Defendant may file a motion compelling further responses after sufficient meet and confer efforts. As Plaintiff responded to Special Interrogatories, Set One, the Court DENIES this request as moot. Request for Production. It appears from Defendant’s Statement that Plaintiff has not formally responded to Request for Production, Set One but did provide some documents. Despite a partial production, Defendant maintains that many records in possession or available to Plaintiff have not been provided. The Court finds good cause for each of the categories listed in Request for Production, Set One. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to the Request for Production. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide a verified response to Request for Production, Set One and produce all responsive records within twenty days of the filing of the Notice of Entry of Order. Sanctions. CCP §§ 2031.300(c) and 2030.290(c) only provide for sanctions when an unsuccessful opposition is made, however, the Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even when no opposition was filed. CRC 3.1348. As it appears that Plaintiff has still not served a verified response to Request for Production, Set One, the Court finds that sanctions are appropriate. The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $410 which is comprised of a $60 filing fee and two hours of attorney time. The third hour requested is not awarded as time to attend the hearing has already been accounted for in Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming Truth of Facts. In the Statement filed by Defendant on July 15, 2024, Defendant requested that Plaintiff be ordered to sit for another deposition at Plaintiff’s expense. This request is not properly before the Court and will not be addressed. Defendant did not provide proposed Orders as required by Local Rule of Court 5.17(D). Defendant is to provide a proposed Order for each motion that is consistent with the Court’s ruling.

Parties to appear in person or remotely. Department 10C is open for in person appearances. Should counsel/parties prefer to appear remotely, follow the instructions below. There is a dedicated conference bridge lines for Dept 10C. Call into dedicated conference bridge line at the time set for the hearing. To attend the remote hearing in Dept 10C: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # 6937 and Pin # 6822.

DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR OTHER PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY GRISSOM VS PARKVIEW DAMAGE/WRONGFUL DEATH TORT CVRI2306299 COMMUNITY HOSPITAL (OVER $25,000) OF GINA GRISSOM MEDICAL CENTER BY PARKVIEW COMMUNITY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, AHMC HEALTHCARE INC., DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF RIVERSIDE LLC Tentative Ruling: SUSTAIN, with 30 days leave to amend. 5. MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT ON 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR OTHER PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY GRISSOM VS PARKVIEW DAMAGE/WRONGFUL DEATH TORT CVRI2306299 COMMUNITY HOSPITAL (OVER $25,000) OF GINA GRISSOM MEDICAL CENTER BY PARKVIEW COMMUNITY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, AHMC HEALTHCARE INC., DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF RIVERSIDE LLC Tentative Ruling: GRANT, with 30 days leave to amend.

LAWSON, ET AL. VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL. Case Number: CVPM21-0197195 This matter is on calendar for review regarding: 1) status of deposit of funds into blocked account for Jonnie Lloyd Lawson Stanley, 2) status of funding the special needs trust for Ravien Lawson, 3) status of Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise for Lou Ella Lawson (the Petition filed April 4, 2024 was stricken per the Court’s Order dated April 5, 2024 because Lou Ella Lawson is not a named party to the Complaint), 4) status of dismissal. Plaintiff has filed a status statement, indicating that additional time is needed to deposit funds and file confirmation of deposit of funds. However, Plaintiff incorrectly states the status regarding Lou Ella Lawson. The Court again notes that the Petition regarding Lou Ella Lawson filed April 4, 2024 was stricken. No Minor’s Compromise has been approved for Lou Ella Lawson. Orders to Deposit Funds have only been executed for Jonnie and Ravien. This matter is continued to Monday, August 26, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64 for review regarding status of the issues noted above. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

TENTATIVE RULING NOTICE 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 and Case Number 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 attend the remote hearing with Judge Kronlund in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows: Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 Tentative Ruling Defendant/Cross Complainant Nicholas Craggs' motion to consolidate is Granted. CCP Section 1048a. Non-opposition filed by Mateo Plaintiffs. The three cases at issue in this motion all involve common questions of law and fact, concerning a motor vehicle crash on 3/31/23. The same witnesses will necessarily be called to testify, and in the interests of justice and judicial economy, consolidation is warranted. Court will sign the proposed order submitted with this motion. Lead case number going forward is: STK-CV-UAT- 2023-0006812, and this case number needs to be on all filings going forward. Barbara A. Kronlund