Tentative ruling on Jul. 10, 2024 in Solano County, CA - Case no: xxxxx874

FCS058487 Motion for Leave to Amend TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff has failed to file a proof of service demonstrating proper and timely service of the motion papers on Defendants. Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1602210102?pwd=emlhR29SczExam56NFFqWHFvSitmZz09 Meeting ID: 160 221 0102 Passcode: 650928 One tap mobile +16692545252,,1602210102#,,,,*650928# US (San Jose) +16692161590,,1602210102#,,,,*650928# US (San Jose)

CL23-01969 Motion for Summary Judgment TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant has not served or filed a separate statement disputing Plaintiff’s facts, which alone justifies granting the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(3).) Moreover, Plaintiff has presented evidence sufficient to meet its burden of proving its breach of contract and common count causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(1); Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853; Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 6 Cal.4th 287, 301, fn. 4.) It is undisputed that Defendant entered into a credit card account with Plaintiff, that Defendant used the credit card and incurred a balance, that Plaintiff sent Defendant monthly statements reflecting all charges, payments, minimum payments due, and fees and interest incurred, that Page 1 of 3 Defendant did not dispute any of the statements, that Defendant breached by failing to make any payments after July 8, 2022, and that Defendant currently owes an unpaid balance of $5,766.30. (UMF 3, 6-9, 11-13.) Consequently, the burden of establishing the existence of a triable issue of material fact shifted to Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(1).) By neglecting to produce any evidence contesting these facts, Defendant has failed to carry her burden. “Summary judgment must be granted when the moving party’s evidence is sufficient to sustain a judgment in its favor and the opposing party does not present evidence raising a triable issue of material fact.” (Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1252.) Judgment shall be entered against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff for the outstanding balance of $5,766.30 and court costs of $800 as identified in the memorandum of costs filed and served concurrently with Plaintiff’s motion for a total of $6,566.30.

FCS058678 Defendants/cross-complainants’ motions to deem matters admitted and for sanctions TENTATIVE RULING Defendants/Cross-Complainants Ian Welter and Jennifer Welter bring 3 motions to deem matters admitted as follows: 1) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted as to Charles Littlefield individually and dba All Bay Builder [sic]; 2) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted against Plaintiffs/Cross- Defendants All Bay Builders, Inc. and 3) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set Two, Admitted against Plaintiffs/Cross- Defendants All Bay Builders, Inc. The Complaint in this matter was filed on August 22, 2022. On February 3, 2023, Defendants filed their Answer and Cross-Complaint. A Notice of Acknowledgment and Receipt was executed by Plaintiff Charles Littlefield individually and dba All Bay Builder counsel on March 27, 2023. No Proof of Service or Notice of Acknowledgment and Receipt is contained in the court file as to Plaintiff All Bay Builders, Inc. On May 8, 2023 a Substitution of Attorneys was filed as to plaintiff/cross-defendant “All Bay Builders”. Plaintiff’s counsel Elizabeth Lawley substituted out of the case and All Bay Builders was named the successor legal representative. No new attorney has substituted into the case on behalf of any of the plaintiffs/cross-defendants. One of the cross-defendants is a corporation and must be represented by an attorney. On June 21, 2023, counsel for Defendants/Cross-Complainants requested the entry of default as to All Bay Builders, Inc. and Charles Littlefield, individually and dba All Bay Builder [sic]. The defaults were entered as to Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants. Page 2 of 3 On December 8, 2023 Defendants/Cross-Complainants served Requests for Admission, Set One on All Bay Builders, Inc. On February 6, 2024 Defendants/Cross- Complainants served Requests for Admission, Set Two on All Bay Builders, Inc. On February 6, 2024 Defendants/Cross-Complainants served Requests for Admission, Set One on Charles Littlefield individually and dba “All Bay Builder” on February 6, 2024. No responses have been received to any of the requests for admission. On June 12, 2024 the instant motions were filed. Counsel for the moving parties has not provided any authority upon which she relies for the principle that a defaulted party can be compelled to respond to discovery served more than 5 months after his or their defaults were taken. Once the clerk enters a default in the court record, that defendant is no longer able to file a response or otherwise participate in the case. It is unclear why discovery was not served on defendants while they were still represented or before their defaults were taken. It is equally unclear why defendants, after losing their rights to file pleadings or defend their position, should be forced to respond to discovery. All three motions are denied. Sanctions are denied. Page 3 of 3

FCS057573 Motions for Contempt TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner’s “motions” for contempt are denied. No affidavit of the facts constituting any contempt has been presented to the court. The filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a contempt proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1211(a); Koehler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169; Oil Workers Int’l Union v. Superior Court (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 541.) Page 1 of 1

FCS057491 Motion by Plaintiff to Consolidate TENTATIVE RULING As acknowledged in both oppositions filed to this motion, both of which quoted the statute, C.C.P. §403 authorizes a judge to order a case from another court to be transferred to that judge’s court for coordination and consolidation for trial. Once cases are in the same court, that court has discretion under C.C.P. §1048 to consolidate them, for all purposes, or for limited purposes, either for pre-trial only, or trial only. Among the factors the court should consider on a consolidation motion are timeliness of the motion, whether consolidation would cause juror confusion, and whether consolidation would cause any party prejudice. Edmon & Karnow (Weil & Brown), Civil Procedure Before Trial, §12:362, p. 12(I)-70. While this motion is far from timely, no trial has yet been set in either case, and therefore no discovery completion deadlines have passed. Furthermore, if trial is not consolidated, there is a significant risk of inconsistent trier of fact findings on the common issue of proportionate liability when the same plaintiff is alleging similar injuries from different motor vehicle accidents occurring three months apart.

FCS059237 Motion to Compel Arbitration TENTATIVE RULING The Court (Department Seven) self recuses pursuant to CCP Section 170.1(b)(6)(iii). Pursuant to the direction of Judge Stephen Gizzi, Supervising Judge of the Civil Division, the matter is reassigned and continued to August 1, 2024 at 9:30 a.m., Department Three.

FCS057573 Motions for Contempt TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner’s “motions” for contempt are denied. No affidavit of the facts constituting any contempt has been presented to the court. The filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a contempt proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1211(a); Koehler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169; Oil Workers Int’l Union v. Superior Court (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 541.) Page 1 of 1

CU24-03274 (1) Demurrer by COUNTY OF KERN; RYAN J. ALSOP; T.R. MERICKEL; and DONNY YOUNGBLOOD to Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint; (2) Demurrer by SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERN; J. ERIC BRADSHAW; and TARA LEAL to Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint; (3) Application for Permission for MOLLY ZHU to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Petitioners/Plaintiffs; and (4) Motion by Petitioners/Plaintiffs for Leave to File a Surreply TENTATIVE RULING County Respondents/Defendants’ Demurrer to Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint On the Court’s own motion, the hearing on the demurrer is continued to August 14, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 2. Judicial Respondents/Defendants’ Demurrer to Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint On the Court’s own motion, the hearing on the demurrer is continued to August 14, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 2. Pending the re-set hearing, Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the Judicial Respondents/Defendants are directed to brief the following issue: If the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition for writ of mandate itself under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, is it required to transfer the petition to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court? Briefs shall be filed no later than July 24, 2024. Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ Pro Hac Vice Application On the Court’s own motion, the hearing on the pro hac vice application is continued to August 14, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 2. Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Surreply On the Court’s own motion, the hearing on the motion for leave to file a surreply is continued to August 14, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 2.

FCS058678 Defendants/cross-complainants’ motions to deem matters admitted and for sanctions TENTATIVE RULING Defendants/Cross-Complainants Ian Welter and Jennifer Welter bring 3 motions to deem matters admitted as follows: 1) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted as to Charles Littlefield individually and dba All Bay Builder [sic]; 2) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted against Plaintiffs/Cross- Defendants All Bay Builders, Inc. and 3) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set Two, Admitted against Plaintiffs/Cross- Defendants All Bay Builders, Inc. The Complaint in this matter was filed on August 22, 2022. On February 3, 2023, Defendants filed their Answer and Cross-Complaint. A Notice of Acknowledgment and Receipt was executed by Plaintiff Charles Littlefield individually and dba All Bay Builder counsel on March 27, 2023. No Proof of Service or Notice of Acknowledgment and Receipt is contained in the court file as to Plaintiff All Bay Builders, Inc. On May 8, 2023 a Substitution of Attorneys was filed as to plaintiff/cross-defendant “All Bay Builders”. Plaintiff’s counsel Elizabeth Lawley substituted out of the case and All Bay Builders was named the successor legal representative. No new attorney has substituted into the case on behalf of any of the plaintiffs/cross-defendants. One of the cross-defendants is a corporation and must be represented by an attorney. On June 21, 2023, counsel for Defendants/Cross-Complainants requested the entry of default as to All Bay Builders, Inc. and Charles Littlefield, individually and dba All Bay Builder [sic]. The defaults were entered as to Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants. Page 2 of 3 On December 8, 2023 Defendants/Cross-Complainants served Requests for Admission, Set One on All Bay Builders, Inc. On February 6, 2024 Defendants/Cross- Complainants served Requests for Admission, Set Two on All Bay Builders, Inc. On February 6, 2024 Defendants/Cross-Complainants served Requests for Admission, Set One on Charles Littlefield individually and dba “All Bay Builder” on February 6, 2024. No responses have been received to any of the requests for admission. On June 12, 2024 the instant motions were filed. Counsel for the moving parties has not provided any authority upon which she relies for the principle that a defaulted party can be compelled to respond to discovery served more than 5 months after his or their defaults were taken. Once the clerk enters a default in the court record, that defendant is no longer able to file a response or otherwise participate in the case. It is unclear why discovery was not served on defendants while they were still represented or before their defaults were taken. It is equally unclear why defendants, after losing their rights to file pleadings or defend their position, should be forced to respond to discovery. All three motions are denied. Sanctions are denied. Page 3 of 3

CU24-03274 (1) Demurrer by COUNTY OF KERN; RYAN J. ALSOP; T.R. MERICKEL; and DONNY YOUNGBLOOD to Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint; (2) Demurrer by SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERN; J. ERIC BRADSHAW; and TARA LEAL to Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint; (3) Application for Permission for MOLLY ZHU to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Petitioners/Plaintiffs; and (4) Motion by Petitioners/Plaintiffs for Leave to File a Surreply TENTATIVE RULING County Respondents/Defendants’ Demurrer to Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint On the Court’s own motion, the hearing on the demurrer is continued to August 14, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 2. Judicial Respondents/Defendants’ Demurrer to Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint On the Court’s own motion, the hearing on the demurrer is continued to August 14, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 2. Pending the re-set hearing, Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the Judicial Respondents/Defendants are directed to brief the following issue: If the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition for writ of mandate itself under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, is it required to transfer the petition to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court? Briefs shall be filed no later than July 24, 2024. Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ Pro Hac Vice Application On the Court’s own motion, the hearing on the pro hac vice application is continued to August 14, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 2. Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Surreply On the Court’s own motion, the hearing on the motion for leave to file a surreply is continued to August 14, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 2.

CU23-04120 Motion to Compel TENTATIVE RULING On the Court’s own motion, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is continued to September 17, 2024 at 9:00 a.m., Department Seven.

CL23-01969 Motion for Summary Judgment TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant has not served or filed a separate statement disputing Plaintiff’s facts, which alone justifies granting the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(3).) Moreover, Plaintiff has presented evidence sufficient to meet its burden of proving its breach of contract and common count causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(1); Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853; Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 6 Cal.4th 287, 301, fn. 4.) It is undisputed that Defendant entered into a credit card account with Plaintiff, that Defendant used the credit card and incurred a balance, that Plaintiff sent Defendant monthly statements reflecting all charges, payments, minimum payments due, and fees and interest incurred, that Page 1 of 3 Defendant did not dispute any of the statements, that Defendant breached by failing to make any payments after July 8, 2022, and that Defendant currently owes an unpaid balance of $5,766.30. (UMF 3, 6-9, 11-13.) Consequently, the burden of establishing the existence of a triable issue of material fact shifted to Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(1).) By neglecting to produce any evidence contesting these facts, Defendant has failed to carry her burden. “Summary judgment must be granted when the moving party’s evidence is sufficient to sustain a judgment in its favor and the opposing party does not present evidence raising a triable issue of material fact.” (Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1252.) Judgment shall be entered against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff for the outstanding balance of $5,766.30 and court costs of $800 as identified in the memorandum of costs filed and served concurrently with Plaintiff’s motion for a total of $6,566.30.