Order: Samuel Levison v. William Guerrero, Sha Huang, Modern Cab Corp., Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., Party Rental, Ltd.

22CV-01305 Maria Garcia v. Manuel Faria Mandatory Settlement Conference 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.

Case Number: 22PSCV01925 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: 6 CASE NAME: Michael Rosas, et al. v. OC Auto Exchange dba LA Auto Exchange, et al. Motion to be Relieved as Plaintiffs Counsel TENTATIVE RULING The Court GRANTS the motion. Plaintiffs Counsel must resubmit a correct and complete proposed order prior to the hearing, addressing the items discussed above, including the correct courthouse address in the caption and noting that the order is effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order (Item 5.a.). Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five calendar days. BACKGROUND This is a fraud action. On November 21, 2022, plaintiffs Michael Rosas and Odalys Rosas (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants OC Auto Exchange dba LA Auto Exchange, a California corporation, Western Surety Company, a South Dakota corporation, Capital One Auto Finance Inc., a Texas Corporation (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 10. On February 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for fraud & deceit, negligent misrepresentation, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, action for rescission of sales contract for sale of goods pursuant to California [ sic ] Code section 1698, violation of California Civil Code section 1632, violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty [ sic ], Civil Code section 1790, et seq., violation of the Consumers [ sic ] Legal Remedies Act Equitable and Injunctive Relief, and violation of Vehicle Code section 11711. On September 5, 2023, Ben Roberts of Law Office of Ben Roberts moved to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion. On March 25, 2024, the Court denied the motion without prejudice. On June 13, 2024, Ben Roberts of Law Office of Ben Roberts moved to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion. LEGAL STANDARD The Court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted, provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. ( See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 403-407.) A motion to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, subd. (d).) DISCUSSION Ben Roberts of Law Office of Ben Roberts (Counsel) seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Michael Rosas and Odalys Rosas. Counsel contends he and his firm have lost all contact with Plaintiffs. (Roberts Decls., ¶ 2.) Grounds for permitting an attorney to withdraw from representation include the clients conduct that renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively[.] (Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16, subd. (b)(4).) A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is also grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw. ( Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.) While the Court finds Plaintiffs lack of communication sufficient grounds for permitting withdrawal, the Court finds a few issues with Counsels motions that need to be fixed. First, each of the Judicial Council forms Counsel filed with the Court show that Counsel provided the wrong courthouse contact information in the caption of each document. Counsel provided the following contact information: 1427 West Covina Parkway, Compton, CA 90220. The correct courthouse address is 1427 West Covina Parkway, West Covina, CA 91790. Nevertheless, the proof of service filed on June 13, 2024, lists the correct courthouse address and the declaration provides the correct courthouse address for the Post-Arbitration Status Conference. The Court will not deny the motion on this ground but admonishes Counsel to carefully proofread documents to ensure they are accurate. Second, the proposed order does not include the Post-Arbitration Status Conference scheduled for July 30, 2024. On May 13, 2024, the Courts minute order provided the new date. The motions to be relieved as counsel were filed on June 13, 2024, therefore, counsel was aware of the new date but failed to include it in the proposed order. The proposed order is also incomplete in that items 3, 5, 6, 9 and as previously discussed, item 7, have not been completed. Notwithstanding, the Court GRANTS the motion. Plaintiff must resubmit a correct and complete proposed order prior to the hearing, addressing the items discussed above, including the correct courthouse address in the caption and noting that the order is effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order (Item 5.a.). CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS the motion. Plaintiffs Counsel must resubmit a correct and complete proposed order prior to the hearing, addressing the items discussed above, including the correct courthouse address in the caption and noting that the order is effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order (Item 5.a.). Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five calendar days.

MARQUEZ VS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CVSW2310812 TUTTOILMONDO SANCTIONS Tentative Ruling: The Motion is DENIED. There are no new facts or law. Plaintiff fails to set forth a sufficient evidentiary basis upon which to conclude that she was not served with the motion to compel further responses. Plaintiff’s motion fails to set forth a sufficient evidentiary basis on which to determine that she was not served with the motion to compel further responses. Her declaration states that defendant’s counsel “false[ly] claimed to have mailed me their motion” (Marquez declaration, p. 4, ln. 19), but fails to provide any details regarding plaintiff’s practice of monitoring and reviewing her mail such that it could reasonably be concluded that she did not receive the motion, let alone that it was not sent. Meanwhile, there is a valid proof of service attached to the discovery motion and supplemental evidence in the Espinoza declaration submitted in opposition to this motion to support a finding that the motion was properly served. Plaintiff in her reply does not dispute that she was actually aware of the motion by the time of the hearing but provides no explanation for why she did not object or ask for a continuance if she had not received actual notice of the motion in time to file an opposition.

Case Number: 23SMCV05929 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: P Tentative Ruling Travelers Commercial Insurance Co. v. Luckenbacher, Case No. 23SMCV05929 Hearing date July 11, 2024 Travelers Motions for Orders Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatives, and Demand for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions In this uninsured motorist case, plaintiff moves to compel defendants responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for production of documents and requests sanctions. No opposition, which would have been due nine court days prior to the hearing (Code Civ. Proc. §1005(b)) was filed. If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections. Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.290(b), 2031.300(b). Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.290(a), 2031.300(a). Failure to verify a response is equivalent to no response at all. Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636. If a party unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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), 2031.300(c). Sanctions may be awarded even though no opposition was filed or the requested discovery was provided after the motion was filed. CRC Rule 3.1348(a). Defendant failed to respond. See generally Volk decls. All objections to the requests are waived. Monetary sanctions are warranted. Plaintiffs counsel requests $841.65 for each motion, representing 4 hours of work (2 hours to draft and 2 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing) at counsels hourly rate of $195, plus filing fee of $61.65. The request for sanctions is granted in a reduced amount because the three motions are virtually identical and are unopposed. The court awards a total of 6 hours (5 hours to draft, 1 hour for hearing) at $195/hour, plus filing fees of $184.95 for three motions. GRANTED. Defendant to serve complete, verified responses, without objection, within 20 days of this order. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the total amount of $1,365, plus $184.95 in filing fees, payable within 30 days.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, CVRI2306086 SOLIS VS FRIAS SET ONE, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS; EXHIBITS BY JANAE CHRISTIE SOLIS Tentative Ruling: Motion denied as the discovery request was served by Plaintiff (a party to the action) in violation of CCP 1013a.

23CV02864 KELLEY v. R.C. BENSON & SONS INC. (UNOPPOSED) MOTION TO INTERVENE County of Santa Cruz’s motion for leave to intervene is granted. Although the County failed to attach the proposed complaint in intervention as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (c), the Court waives that defect. The complaint in intervention shall be filed within 14 days of the hearing. 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.

Case Number: 20STCV40002 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Dept: 28 Having set an order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement), the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On October 19, 2020, Plaintiffs Dalilah Villalobos, by and through her guardian ad litem Laura Eggleston, and Catalina Villalobos, by and through her guardian ad litem Maria Dominguez, filed this action against Defendants Final Touch Construction & Design, Luis Anthony Echeverria, Luis M. Echeverria, Chantra Sun, Lorraine Garcia, Gus Garcia, and Does 1-50 for wrongful death (motor vehicle negligence). On October 20, 2020, the Court appointed Laura Eggleston to serve as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Dalilah Villalobos. On October 29, 2020, the Court appointed Maria Dominguez to serve as guardian ad litem for Catalina Villalobos. On May 6, 2022, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Final Touch Construction & Design, Luis Anthony Echeverria, and Luis M. Echeverria filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-25 for equitable/implied indemnity, apportionment and contribution, and declaratory relief. On May 31, 2022, Defendant Chantra Sun filed an answer. In addition, Cross-Complainant Chantra Sun, individually and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Katrina Ariana Wilkins-Sun, filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Final Touch Construction & Design, Luis Anthony Echeverria, Luis M. Echeverria, and Roes 1-100 for negligence, wrongful death and survival action damages, equitable/implied indemnity, comparative contribution, apportionment, and tort of another. On November 29, 2022 and January 4, 2023, the Court dismissed Defendants Lorraine Garcia and Gus Garcia without prejudice at Plaintiffs request. On June 14, 2023, Cross-Complainant Chantra Sun filed a notice of unconditional settlement of the entire case on June 5, 2023. On August 28, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel asked the Court for additional time to submit petitions for approval of minors compromises. In response, the Court set an order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) and a status conference re: filing of a petition to approve minors compromise for November 28, 2023. On November 28, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel asked the Court for a continuance to finish negotiations on the Medi-Cal lien and to file petitions to approve minors compromises. The Court continued the order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) and the status conference re: filing of a petition to approve minor's compromise to March 8, 2024. On March 8, 2024, Plaintiffs counsel did not appear, contact the Court to explain the non-appearance, file a petition to approve minors compromise, or submit a declaration showing good cause. The Court continued the order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) and status conference re: filing of a petition to approve minor's compromise to April 24, 2024 and ordered counsel to file a declaration at least two court days before April 24, 2024 regarding the status of the petitions and counsel's failure to appear. On April 22, 2024, Plaintiffs counsel filed a declaration stating his failure to appear at the March 8, 2024 hearing was due to mistake, inadvertence and/or excusable neglect. Counsel stated: (1) the matter had settled, (2) he was filing petitions to approve minors compromises, and (3) he had reserved hearings on the petitions for May 21, 2024. Counsel asked the Court to continue the order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) and status conference re: filing of a petition to approve minor's compromise for 90 days. On April 24, 2024, the Court continued the order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) and status conference re: filing of a petition to approve minor's compromise to May 28, 2024. The Court ordered that the hearings on petitions to confirm minors compromise reserved for May 28, 2024 were to go forward and moving papers were to be filed timely. On May 24, 2024, Plaintiffs counsel filed a declaration stating that he did not file the petitions to approve minors compromise timely because "the guardian ad litems were still selecting the annuity structure for the respective claimants" and counsel was still waiting for fully executed annuity documents. On May 28, 2024 , the Court continued the order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) and status conference re: filing of a petition to approve minor's compromise to July 10, 2024. Plaintiffs have not filed petitions to approve minors compromises and have not submitted a new declaration showing good cause why the Court should not dismiss the action. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 provides: (a) The court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to this article on its own motion or on motion of the defendant if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case. (b) Dismissal shall be pursuant to the procedure and in accordance with the criteria prescribed by rules adopted by the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.410.) A discretionary dismissal under [Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410] (or for other delay in prosecution) is without prejudice to renewed litigation. (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 11:190.2, p. 11-83.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385, provides in part: (b) Dismissal of case Except as provided in (c) or (d), each plaintiff or other party seeking affirmative relief must serve and file a request for dismissal of the entire case within 45 days after the date of settlement of the case. If the plaintiff or other party required to serve and file the request for dismissal does not do so, the court must dismiss the entire case 45 days after it receives notice of settlement unless good cause is shown why the case should not be dismissed. * * * (d) Compromise of claims of a minor or disabled person If the settlement of the case involves the compromise of the claim of a minor or person with a disability, the court must not hold an order to show cause hearing under (b) before the court has held a hearing to approve the settlement, provided the parties have filed appropriate papers to seek court approval of the settlement. (e) Request for additional time to complete settlement If a party who has served and filed a notice of settlement under (a) determines that the case cannot be dismissed within the prescribed 45 days, that party must serve and file a notice and a supporting declaration advising the court of that party's inability to dismiss the case within the prescribed time, showing good cause for its inability to do so, and proposing an alternative date for dismissal. The notice and a supporting declaration must be served and filed at least 5 court days before the time for requesting dismissal has elapsed. If good cause is shown, the court must continue the matter to allow additional time to complete the settlement. The court may take such other actions as may be appropriate for the proper management and disposition of the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1385, subds. (b), (d), (e).) DISCUSSION As noted, on June 14, 2023, Cross-Complainant Chantra Sun filed a notice of unconditional settlement of the entire case. On August 28, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel confirmed the settlement by asking the Court for additional time to submit petitions to approve minors compromises. The Court granted the continuance request and granted counsels subsequent continuance requests on November 28, 2023, April 24, 2024, and May 28, 2024. It is now more than one year after the parties settled the case. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385(b), except as provided in subdivisions (c) or (d), the Court must dismiss the entire case 45 days after it receives notice of settlement unless good cause is shown why the case should not be dismissed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1385(b).) Subdivision (c) of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385, applies only to conditional settlements. The notice of settlement here states the settlement was unconditional. Therefore, subdivision (c) does not apply here. Subdivision (d) of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385, states that [i]f the settlement of the case involves the compromise of the claim of a minor or person with a disability, the court must not hold an order to show cause hearing under (b) before the court has held a hearing to approve the settlement, provided the parties have filed appropriate papers to seek court approval of the settlement . (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1385(d), emphasis added.) Here, Plaintiffs have not filed appropriate papers to seek Court approval of the settlement. Therefore, subdivision (d) does not prevent the Court from holding an order to show cause hearing. The Court set the July 10, 2024 order to show cause hearing on May 28, 2024. Plaintiffs have submitted no papers since May 28, 2024 demonstrating good cause why the case should not be dismissed. The Court dismisses the case under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385(b). CONCLUSION Having issued an order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) on May 28, 2024, and no good cause having been shown, the Court dismisses the case without prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385(b). The Court will give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: 19STLC05734 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: 26 State Farm v. Tomakili, et al. MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION (CCP § 664.6) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companys Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN PLAINTIFFS FAVOR AND AGAINST DEFENDANT OLUTOYIN OLA TOMAKILI IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,300.00 PRINCIPAL, PLUS $500.00 IN COSTS. ANALYSIS: On June 14, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff) filed this subrogation action against Defendant Olutoyin Ola Tomakili (Defendant). Defendant filed an answer on August 16, 2019. On October 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a copy of the parties settlement agreement with a request for dismissal and retention of jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The Court dismissed the action pursuant to the stipulation on November 15, 2022. (Order for Dismissal, 11/15/22.) On April 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement, and Enter Judgment. To date, no opposition has been filed. Legal Standard The instant motion is brought under Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6, which states in relevant part: If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).) Prior to January 1, 2021, parties under section 664.6 meant the litigants themselves, not their attorneys. ( Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586.) The current statute provides that parties includes an attorney who represents the party and an insurers agent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (b).) The settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. ( J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) The settlement agreement complies with the statutory requirements set forth above because it was signed by both parties and their attorneys. (Motion, Reese Decl., Exh. A, pp. 2-3.) Furthermore, the request for retention of jurisdiction must be made in writing, by the parties, before the action is dismissed for the Courts retention of jurisdiction to conform to the statutory language. ( Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433 [If, after a suit has been dismissed, a party brings a section 664.6 motion for a judgment on a settlement agreement but cannot present to the court a request for retention of jurisdiction that meets all of these requirements, then enforcement of the agreement must be left to a separate lawsuit.].) The parties request for retention of jurisdiction complies with these requirements because it was made in writing to the Court before the action was dismissed. (Motion, Reese Decl., Exh. A, ¶3.) The settlement provides that Defendant would pay Plaintiff $12,400.00 through an initial payment from Defendants insurer of $10,000.0, followed by Defendants monthly payments starting on September 1, 2022. ( Id . at Exh. A, ¶2.) The settlement agreement also provides that upon Defendants default, Plaintiff may seek judgment in the settlement amount, plus costs not to exceed $500.00, less any monies paid. ( Id . at ¶3.) Payments of $11,100.00 were made towards the settlement, after which Defendant defaulted. ( Id . at ¶¶4-5 and Exh. C.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment against Defendant in the amount of $1,300.00 principal ($12,400.00 - $11,100.00) plus costs of $500.00. ( Id . at ¶8.) Conclusion Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companys Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN PLAINTIFFS FAVOR AND AGAINST DEFENDANT OLUTOYIN OLA TOMAKILI IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,300.00 PRINCIPAL, PLUS $500.00 IN COSTS. Moving party to give notice.