Tentative ruling on Jul. 10, 2024 in Alameda County, CA - Case no: xxxxx447

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

23CV030341: VAUGHN vs FLETCHER, et al. 07/26/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Deem RFAs Admitted; filed by PATRICIA VAUGHN (Plaintiff) in Department 520 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Julia Spain Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Set One served on 2/29/24 to be admitted is GRANTED. Plaintiff requests $1520 as sanctions representing a $60 filing fee and $1460 in attorneys fees calculated at $350 per hour for four and a quarter hours. The court finds this request to be reasonable. Defendant shall pay plaintiff's counsel $1520 as sanctions by August 23, 2024. NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on JULY 26, 2024 unless, by no later than 4pm on JULY 25, 2024, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or self- represented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling. The subject line (RE: ) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument. The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. His/Her email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed. ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice he/she will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.

22CV016839: DOE vs OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed by Defendant in Department 520 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Julia Spain Defendant Oakland Unified School District's unopposed motion for terminating and monetary sanctions is GRANTED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed suit in August 2022 against Defendant alleging sexual assault while a minor student. On April 2, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to compel further discovery seeking: (i) terminating sanctions; or (ii) an order directing plaintiff to provide documents and amended responses by a date certain. Vincent Decl., at ¶ 3; Exhibit A to Vincent Decl. The motion was heard on May 2, 2024, and while the request for terminating sanctions was denied without prejudice, plaintiff was ordered to “serve supplemental verified responses that are code compliant to OUSD’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents by or before May 10, 2024.” The Court noted in its order that, “as the trial date is quickly approaching in this matter, Defendant will likely suffer prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond” and “Plaintiff’s further failure to respond to discovery and comply with this Order may result in terminating and/or issue sanctions.” Defendant now seeks terminating sanctions because Plaintiff, without substantial justification, failed to comply with the Court’s discovery Order to serve full and complete verified responses to the above-referenced written discovery by and before May 10, 2024 and has failed to respond to any and all efforts by defendant to communicate with plaintiff. It appears plaintiff has effectively abandoned this action. LEGAL STANDARD Misuse of the discovery process includes the failure to obey a court order to provide discovery. (CCP §§ 2023.010(g).) The court may impose the monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions on anyone who engages in such conduct. (CCP § 2023.030(a)-(d).) Two “absolutely” prerequisite facts to imposition of the sanction for an abuse of discovery are (1) there must be a failure to comply, and (2) the failure must be willful. (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 929.) If it is sufficiently egregious, misconduct committed in connection with the failure to produce evidence in discovery may justify the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions even absent a prior order compelling discovery, or its equivalent. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1426.) A terminating sanction is a drastic penalty and should be used sparingly. (Id.) A trial court must be cautious when imposing a terminating sanction because the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV016839: DOE vs OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed by Defendant in Department 520 sanction eliminates a party’s fundamental right to trial, thus implicating due process rights. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) DISCUSSION Failing to obey a court order is a “[m]isuse[ ] of the discovery process,” i.e., an express statutory ground for terminating sanctions. (§§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2023.030, subd. (d), 2025.450, subd. (h).) An abuse of discovery procedures in one instance can imply a continuing intent to abuse in other instances. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 430-31.) The ultimate sanction of terminating sanctions is permissible where the litigant persists in refusing to comply with his discovery obligations. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 797.) Two “absolutely” prerequisite facts to imposition of the sanction for an abuse of discovery are (1) there must be a failure to comply, and (2) the failure must be willful. (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 929.) Lack of diligence may be deemed willful in the sense that the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply. (Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611.) The record establishes that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order to provide further written discovery responses or verify the responses. The Court is sufficiently persuaded that Plaintiff was aware of the Court’s Order and that the failure to comply was willful. Plaintiff has failed to comply with her discovery obligations. Plaintiff did not oppose either the motion to compel nor the instant motion for sanctions. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court Order, Defendant’s motion for terminating sanction is GRANTED. The Court strikes Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on August 25, 2022 and vacates the jury trial date. NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on JULY 25, 2024 unless, by no later than 4pm on JULY 24, 2024, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or self- represented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling. The subject line (RE: ) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument. The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. His/Her email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV016839: DOE vs OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed by Defendant in Department 520 ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice he/she will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.

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 .

23CV057357: BARNER vs CAPPICO, LLC, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Relief from Waiver of Jury Trial; filed by VANESSA BARNER (Plaintiff) in Department 17 Tentative Ruling - 07/23/2024 Frank Roesch The Motion re: Motion for Relief from Waiver of Jury Trial filed by VANESSA BARNER on 07/01/2024 is Granted. Plaintiff Vanessa Barner’s (“Plaintiff”) Unopposed Motion for Relief from Jury Waiver is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd. (g).) The pre-trial hearing requirements are modified to include the following: At least ten (10) days prior to the Conference, the parties are ORDERED to meet-and-confer regarding the following subjects: (1) the reservation of exhibit number ranges for each party; (2) which of the parties' exhibits can be admitted without objection and the elimination of duplicative exhibits; (3) whether there are any evidentiary issues that will require pre-trial hearing; (4) whether any issue in the trial should be bifurcated; (5) the length of the trial; (6) any outstanding discovery and completion dates; (7) deposition designations and counter-designations and any objections thereto; (8) arranging for a court reporter if desired, and as set forth below. (9) the benefit of additional alternative dispute resolution prior to trial; (10) the need for an interpreter for any witness (Gov't Code §68560; Evid. Code §§750-755.5); and (11) any other trial readiness issues. The court may inquire of the date, time, method, and duration of the parties' meet and confer efforts. The parties must bring to the Pretrial Conference the following: (1) All motions in limine each party wishes to present. (2) The Trial Brief of each party who believes a trial brief is necessary or appropriate in this matter. (3) A comprehensive list of all witnesses the parties intend to call in the case. (4) Each Party's List of Exhibits. The Exhibit List shall be styled in the following column format: Ex. No. Description Admit/Stip Witness Date (5) The Exhibits. They must be contained in a 3-ring binder and collated in the order the party wishes them to be marked and a second 3-ring binder containing a "bench copy" of the Exhibits. The motions in limine may be heard and determined at the Pretrial Conference. Note that the following in limine motions shall not be filed but will be deemed to have been ORDERED: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV057357: BARNER vs CAPPICO, LLC, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Relief from Waiver of Jury Trial; filed by VANESSA BARNER (Plaintiff) in Department 17 (a) exclude all witnesses until testimony completed; (b) no reference to or evidence of settlement discussions or mediation; (c) no reference to or evidence of insurance; (d) no reference to or evidence of other claims/suits/actions against a party; and (e) no reference to or evidence of wealth or lack thereof of any party except in the punitive damage phase of a case. Exceptions to the foregoing must be raised at the Pretrial Conference. It is further ordered that as of the first day of trial, all DOE parties will be dismissed. The parties are advised pursuant to Rule of Court 2.956(b) that a Court Reporter is not provided by the court for general civil proceedings, including the Pretrial Conference, motions in limine, specially set trial hearings, or any other proceedings. A party may arrange for the presence of a certified shorthand reporter to serve as an official pro tempore reporter. It will be the responsibility of the litigant(s) to pay the reporter's fee for the attendance at the proceedings, but the expense may be recoverable as part of the costs of suit. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.956(c).) A court reporter taking testimony during trial must be available during the entirety of the court's schedule as set by the judge. For purposes of guidance only, this typically means that the court reporter should be available at least 15 minutes prior to the scheduled start time for each trial day or session. Generally trial will begin at 9:00 a.m. and conclude by 4:30 p.m. Court reporters should be prepared to report for as long as 90 minutes without interruption. While longer breaks are sometimes provided, the court will provide at least two 15-minute breaks, one in the morning, and one in the afternoon, as well as a lunch break of one hour. If the parties require daily transcripts, counsel should consider whether two court reporters should be provided and available as defined above. Any court reporter working within the Alameda County Superior Court shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, witnesses, lawyers, the court and others with whom he or she comes into contact, and shall also refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. The parties are expected to be ready for trial and ready to discuss these topics at the Pretrial Conference. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the actual trial counsel and self-represented parties must personally appear at the Conference. The court looks with disfavor on requests for trial continuance. 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? SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV057357: BARNER vs CAPPICO, LLC, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Relief from Waiver of Jury Trial; filed by VANESSA BARNER (Plaintiff) in Department 17 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.

23CV051077: HEMMAT vs GRIFFITH 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Reagan Griffith (Cross-Complainant) in Department 518 Tentative Ruling - 07/23/2024 Victoria Kolakowski The Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Reagan Griffith (Cross-Complainant) scheduled for 07/25/2024 is continued to 09/12/2024 at 02:30 PM in Department 518 at Hayward Hall of Justice . I. Background Ed Hemmat sued Reagan Griffith (doing business as “Ray of Light”), among another, alleging that Griffith breached their 5-year commercial lease agreement for a property in Hayward, California. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 7–11, Nov. 13, 2023.) Hemmat alleged that in November 2023 Griffith abandoned the property without lawful justification and that Griffith owes $145,800.00 in unpaid rent, late fees, lost rent, and expenses in reletting the property. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 11.) Hemmat filed a complaint asserting causes of action for breach of contract and common count (open book account). (Id. ¶¶ 6–19.) Griffith filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Hemmat. (Answer, Jan. 19, 2024; Cross-Compl., Jan. 19, 2024.) Soon after appearing, Griffith filed a set of form interrogatories (general), special interrogatories, and document requests. (Akbar Decl. ¶ 3, May 13, 2024; see also id. Exs. A, B, D (copies of discovery requests).) On February 23, 2024, Hemmat responded to the requests. (Id. ¶ 4; see also id. Exs. E, F, H (copies of responses).) On February 26, 2024, Griffith emailed Hemmat noting what he believed were deficient responses. (Id. Ex. I.) Hemmat did not respond. (Id. ¶ 6.) On March 6, 2024, Griffith followed up on his email; and Griffith noted he was leaving for vacation and had urgent matters in other actions. (Id. Ex. J.) In mid-March, the parties later met and conferred by telephone and Hemmat agreed to provide further responses by March 29, 2024. (Id. ¶ 8.) Hemmat did not amend his responses. (Id. ¶ 9.) Griffith twice followed up with Hemmat about the status of the responses, but Hemmat did not respond. (Id.) Griffith moved to compel further responses to the special and form interrogatories, and document requests. (Mot., May 13, 2024.) Hemmat opposed, arguing that Griffith improperly moved to compel further responses to the three discovery requests through a single motion, that the separate statement is defective, among other points. (Opp’n Mem., July 9, 2024.) II. Discussion The Court continues the hearing on this motion to allow the parties to further meet and confer about the adequacy of Hemmat’s responses to the discovery requests. Although the Court tentatively agrees that Hemmat’s responses appear deficient (see, e.g., Separate Stmt. 3:10–23 (incomplete responses), 6:16–7:13) (same), 11:24–14:8 (same), 14:9–16:25 (same), May 13, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV051077: HEMMAT vs GRIFFITH 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Reagan Griffith (Cross-Complainant) in Department 518 20241), the Court finds that the parties’ meet and confer efforts were marginal. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Proc. Before Trial, Ch. 8F-7, ¶ 8:1136 (Rutter Group 2023) (“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.”) (citing Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1016).) The Court is unpersuaded by Hemmat’s arguments that the motion and the supporting separate statement are procedurally defective. III. Orders The motion is continued to September 12, 2024, at 2:30 p.m. The parties must meet and confer either in person or by telephone or video conference (in order of preference)—on more than one occasion if necessary—to discuss the adequacy of Hemmat’s responses to the special and form interrogatories, and document requests. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, the parties must submit a joint separate statement no later than August 29, 2024, containing the information prescribed by Rule of Court 3.1345(c) and detailing the parties’ subsequent meet and confer efforts. The joint separate statement may not exceed 15 pages. 1 To avoid any confusion: The Court references these responses as tentative findings. The Court defers ruling on the adequacy of Hemmat’s responses and objections to the next hearing on this motion. PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing. To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following: First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion. Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed." SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV051077: HEMMAT vs GRIFFITH 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Reagan Griffith (Cross-Complainant) in Department 518 Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting. Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984 Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line) --- Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)

HG20063283: Fontanila VS R.V. Esau Development Co., Inc. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion for an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt (CCP 1209) filed by Miguelito C Fontanila (Cross-Defendant) + in Department 24 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Rebekah Evenson The Motion re: RE RV ESAUs INDIRECT CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER RENDERED OCTOBER 19 2022 FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES filed by Margaret Fontanila, Miguelito C Fontanila on 07/05/2024 is Denied. Plaintiffs’ motion for an order that Defendant is in contempt for violation of the Court’s October 19, 2022 order for payment of attorney fees is DENIED. The Court’s October 19, 2022 order awarded Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendant in the amount of $4,622.83, but it did not set forth any date by which those fees and costs had to be paid. Therefore, Defendant’s failure to pay those fees and costs by any particular date is not amenable to contempt. Plaintiffs are free to seek to enforce the October 19, 2022 order the same way they would seek to enforce any monetary judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 and Lucky v. United Properties Investment Inc. v. Lee (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 125, 143- 144.)

21CV000063: SIU vs SIU, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike First and Fourth Causes of Action; filed by Kuai Cheong Siu (Defendant) + in Department 25 Tentative Ruling - 07/24/2024 Jenna Whitman The Hearing on Motion to Strike First and Fourth Causes of Action; filed by Kuai Cheong Siu (Defendant) + scheduled for 07/25/2024 is continued to 08/22/2024 at 03:00 PM in Department 25 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse . The Hearing on Demurrer DEMURRER TO FIRST, SECOND, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, AND TENTH CAUSES OF ACTION IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by Kuai Cheong Siu (Defendant) + scheduled for 07/25/2024 is continued to 08/22/2024 at 03:00 PM in Department 25 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse . The Hearing on Motion - Other Joinder; filed by Roberto's Inc. (Defendant) scheduled for 07/25/2024 is continued to 08/22/2024 at 03:00 PM in Department 25 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse .