Tentative ruling on Jul. 10, 2024 in San Joaquin County, CA - Case no: xxxxx043

On June 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment Pursuant to CCP § 585 and Request for Attorneys’ Fees. Having read all the papers filed, the court issues the following tentative ruling: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. The Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted by the Plaintiff. Blanca A. Bañuelos Judge of the Superior Court of California Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling 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 or in person in Dept. 10B no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name 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. Department 10B is open for in person appearances. For remote appearances, please call into the dedicated conference bridge line for Department 10B at the time set for the hearing. The conference bridge phone number is (209) 992-5590. Follow the prompts and dial 6939 (4-digit bridge line) and 3892 (4-digit pin number).

2022-3649 Jones Motion to Bifurcate Trial 7/25/2024 Defendant brings a Moton to Bifurcate Trial as to Try Issues of Liability and Damages Separately. Having read the moving papers, the opposition papers, and reply papers, the court issues the following tentative ruling: Defendant argues that bifurcation is warranted to save time, judicial resources, avoid jury confusion, and avoid prejudice to defendant. Plaintiffs oppose bifurcation and points out that bifurcation would actually lead to longer trials and require numerous witnesses to have to testify twice. Plaintiffs also argue that any confusion or perceived prejudice may be dealt with via jury instructions, as is common in the majority of cases that go to jury trial. When the case was set for trial both sides provided a trial estimate of 7 days. With what the court knows regarding the issues in dispute as well as the high caliber of the trial counsel for both sides, the court agrees this is a realistic estimate to try this case to verdict. The Court does not believe that bifurcation would promote judicial economy. If liability is established the court believes the opposite, the bifurcated trial will be longer, require the use of additional judicial resources, and result in an inconvenience to the witnesses, jury, and court staff. In regards to jury confusion and/or perceived prejudice to moving defendant, these arguments are not uncommon in every civil trial where liability is contested. The court has steadfast confidence in the citizens of San Joaquin County and is certain any confusion and/or perceived prejudice can be addressed adequately by jury instructions as well as argument by the experienced trial teams. For these reasons, the court denies the motion under CCP 598. The also court declines to exercise its discretion under CCP 1048 and order separate trial of liability. The court denies the request to bifurcate the trial on issue of liability and damages. Plaintiff to prepare the order for Court signature. If oral argument is requested, the parties are to appear remotely via the Dept. 11B bridge line by dialing (209)992-5590 enter Bridge No. 6941 and Passcode 5564. WATERS 7/24/2024 Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: 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, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name 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 conduct a remote appearance, follow the instructions below. There is a dedicated conference bridge lines for Dept. 11B. Call into dedicated conference bridge line at the time set for the hearing. To attend the remote hearing in Dept. 11B: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # 6941 and Pin # 5564. The courtroom clerk will make announcements and the Judge will call the calendar. Please mute your phones when you are not speaking, and remember to unmute your phone when you are speaking. At this time, we are not able to provide information over the phone. To communicate with the Courtroom Clerk of Dept. 11B, please email questions to civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org, indicating in the title of the email the Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name. A Courtroom Clerk will return your email. To ensure the Court has your most recent contact information, if you have not already done so, please register your email address and mobile number on the Court’s website under Online Services, Attorney Registration. (You do not have to be an attorney to register.) We thank you for your cooperation, assistance, patience and flexibility.

Defendants’ counsel, Elizabeth A Skane and Chrstine C. McCoy have filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL as to Defendants AVENUE ULTRA LOUNG, LLC dba AVENUE ON THE MILE, KEVIN HERNANDEZ and JASON LAURENTI. The Motion is GRANTED as all statutory requirements have been met. Defendants’ Counsel is to submit to the Court a Proposed Order on Judicial Council Form MC-053. Additionally, a Corporation cannot proceed in pro per in legal proceedings. (Merco Const. Engineers, Inc. v. Mun. Ct. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co.) (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 731.) This prohibition stems from the notion a corporate representative who would likely appear on behalf of the corporation would be engaged in the unlicensed practice of law. (Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.) As such, as to Defendant AVENUE ULTRA LOUNGE, LLC dba AVENUE ON THE MILE is ordered to retain new legal counsel and have them appear in this matter. Defendants’ Counsel is to also inform Defendants that they are to appear at the Case Management Conference of August 30, 2024 at 8:45 am and that they can appear in person or on the bridge line. Defendants’ counsel is to provide Defendants the court’s bridge line information. The relief is not effective until a proof of service is filed with the court showing the signed Order was served on Defendants. Blanca A. Bañuelos Judge of the Superior Court of California Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling 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 or in person in Dept. 10B no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name 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. Department 10B is open for in person appearances. For remote appearances, please call into the dedicated conference bridge line for Department 10B at the time set for the hearing. The conference bridge phone number is (209) 992-5590. Follow the prompts and dial 6939 (4-digit bridge line) and 3892 (4-digit pin number).

Please use Case Management Search for Tentative Ruling(s).

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable With Production of Documents. As ordered by the Court, a Joint Statement regarding what remains in dispute as to this motion was filed by the parties on July 12, 2024. After the case did not resolve at the Mandatory Settlement Conference of July 15, 2024, the court set the Motion on shortened noticed to be heard on July 24, 2024. Defendant was to file an Opposition no later than July 19, 2024. After reading all the papers filed, the Court issues the following tentative ruling: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. Defendants are ordered to produce Person(s) Most Knowledgeable as to Category Nos. 1 through 15, 19 and 20. The Defendant is ORDERED to produce Person(s) Most Knowledgeable no later than August 9, 2024. For purposes of the deposition of the Person(s) Most Knowledgeable ONLY, discovery is extended through that date. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion as to the following Category Nos. 16 through 18. In regards to the Production of Documents, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests Nos. 1 through 11, 15 and 16. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to as to Requests Nos. 12 through 14. Blanca A. Bañuelos Judge of the Superior Court of California Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling 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 or in person in Dept. 10B no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name 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. Department 10B is open for in person appearances. For remote appearances, please call into the dedicated conference bridge line for Department 10B at the time set for the hearing. The conference bridge phone number is (209) 992-5590. Follow the prompts and dial 6939 (4-digit bridge line) and 3892 (4-digit pin number).

Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement is GRANTED. Jayne C. Lee Judge of the Superior Court Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: 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, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name 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. Parties may appear in person in Dept. 10C or remotely to contest the tentative ruling. To conduct a remote appearance, 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.

The court having read and considered Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay filed June 25, 2024, Defendant, Security Paving Company's Opposition and Plaintiff's Reply rules as follows. The court finds Plaintiff's Motion to be moot. The court finds Defendants' payment of arbitration fees occurred after filing and service of Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees in the sum of $5,010.00 and costs in the sum of $555.00. Parties may appear remotely, if oral argument is requested. Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

This Court issues this tentative ruling on the 2 Discovery Motions set for 7/26/24: Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure section 639, the Court on its own motion finds that there are presently, or have been and continue to be discovery disputes between the parties, that the discovery disputes present exceptional circumstances, specifically, that the discovery disputes are lengthy, or protracted, or present complex issues of law and/or fact, and that it is necessary for the court to appoint a referee to hear and tentatively determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make recommendations hereon. This reference is made for all discovery purposes in the action, subject to the referee making any disclosures required by the Code of Civil Procedure and the California Rules of Court. (See Cal. Civ. Pro. Code §639(a)(5)(c).) Discovery Referee Information: John Conger, Esq. Mckinley, Conger, Jolley, Galarneau 3031 West March Lane, Suite 230 Stockton, CA 95219 (209) 477-8171 jconger@MCJGLAW.COM Amount per hour: $450. In addition, the parties should know that this is a Direct Calendar department that must hear all law and motion as well as trials. At this time the Court does not have the resources to devote to the discovery disputes presented herein to ensure that they are timely and thoroughly considered.

On the Court’s own motion, the Court CONTINUES Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Previous Court Order to August 23, 2024 at 9:00 am. No further briefing is allowed without leave of court.

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 Court on its own motion continues this matter to 8/27/2024, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 10-D. Court will post a tentative ruling the day prior, and Counsel must request argument according to the Court's Tentative Ruling procedures set forth in the Court's Local Rules, if argument is desired. The Court determines that there was not a sufficient meet and confer process, in that it was cut short too early. The Court expects the parties to engage in a robust, good-faith, reasonable meet and confer. See Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 CA4th 424. The Court believes the Defense demand for a written itemization or letter outlining the Plaintiff's complaints about the Defense discovery responses is reasonable under the circumstances. Plaintiff must provide such written letter or outline of the discovery disputes to the Defense, as a preliminary matter. Then, this Court is ordering Counsel to meet in person, or via telephone or Zoom to conduct further meet and confer as set forth above. However, the Court notes that discovery requests to produce documents or in special interrogators may not contain sub-parts. See the Code. Also, Supplemental Response to RFPD No.8 appears on its face, to be only a partial response; it appears some part of the answer was just cut off or left out inadvertently. This RFPD should be completely answered with responsive documents produced. Barbara A Kronlund

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Jayco Inc. (“Defendant”) brings this Motion to Stay the current action. Having reviewed the moving, opposition, and reply documents, the Court issues the following tentative ruling: As more fully set forth below, Defendant’s Motion to Stay is Denied. MOTION TO STAY LEGAL STANDARD A motion to stay or dismiss may be brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, subd. (a) on the grounds that “in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state.” This section codifies the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. (St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. AmerisourceBergen Corp. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1, 13.) The trial court is vested with broad discretion, applying equitable principles, to determine if an action may be more appropriately and justly tried in another forum. (Id.) Generally, mandatory forum selection clauses are favored and will be enforced if the contract was entered into freely and voluntarily. (America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1, 11.) The burden of proof is on the party opposing enforcement to show that enforcing the mandatory forum selection clauses would be unreasonable. (Trident Labs, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch Comm. Fin. Corp. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 147, 153; Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1678-79.) However, these principles do not apply when claims are brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Civ. Code §§ 1790 et seq.) This is because “the Song-Beverly Act is strongly pro-consumer,” and section 1790.1 contains an antiwaiver provision that broadly states “[a]ny waiver by the buyer of consumer goods of the provisions of this chapter, except as expressly provided in this chapter, shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be unenforceable and void.” (Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 985, 990.) Where non-waivable statutory rights are involved, the party seeking to enforce an out-of-state forum selection clause bears the burden of proving that enforcement will not diminish in any way the substantive rights afforded under California law. (Rheinhart v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1016, 1031, 1034-35 [pre-litigation settlement including a release was not enforceable under Song-Beverly antiwaiver provision]; Verdugo v. Alliantgroup, L.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 141, 149 [non-waivable Cal. Labor Code claims]; Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight Etc. Internat (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1522-23 [burden of proof on franchisor to show that enforcement of forum selection clause would not diminish franchisee’s rights]; America Online v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1, 11 [non-waivable claims under CLRA].) This requires the moving party to compare whether enforcing a forum selection and choice-of-law clause would violate California’s public policy as embodied in its governing statutes, and requires a showing that either the foreign forum provides the same or greater rights than California, or that the foreign forum will apply California law on the claims at issue. (Verdugo, supra, at 156.) ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION As an initial matter, Defendant cites to various decisions in other federal and California courts involving Defendant’s disputes with other plaintiffs, and urges this court to review those decisions and adopt the reasoning applied to grant this motion to stay. However, Defendant failed to request judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452 or 453, failed to provide copies of any pleadings or orders for the court’s review, and failed to either make arrangements to have copies filed with the clerk or confirm that those proceedings are electronically accessible to the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1306, subd. (c).) To the extent Defendant requests judicial notice of those other proceedings, that request is denied. On balance, Defendant failed to meet its burden to show that enforcement of the Indiana forum-selection clause would not diminish the rights of Plaintiffs Brian Craig and Dorcas Ruth Erickson (“Plaintiffs”) under California law, or that California law would be applied in the action if filed in Indiana. First, Defendant offered no comparison between Plaintiffs’ rights under Indiana law compared to California law, and offered no legal or evidentiary basis to conclude Plaintiffs’ rights under Indiana law would be the same or greater than those under California law. As more fully discussed below, Plaintiffs presented a number of arguments showing that Indiana law could severely curtail Plaintiffs’ remedies and right to a jury trial. (P’s Opp. p. 6 ln. 15-21, p. 7 lns. 7-24.) Second, while Defendant offers to stipulate that California law would apply in a new action filed (D’s Reply p. 2 lns. 24-26; Baker Decl. ¶ 2), it presents no legal or evidentiary support to show that this offer is binding between the parties or in any new action. Plaintiffs properly argue that this is speculative at best, as California courts have found that predictions or offers to apply California substantive law are not sufficient. (Verdugo, supra, at 152 and 158 [“Alliantgroup must show enforcing the forum selection clause ‘will not diminish in any way’ Verdugo’s statutory rights”], and Wimsatt, supra, at 1520-21). Defendant also quotes the last sentence in the Jayco warranty that states “THIS WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS; YOU MAY HAVE OTHER RIGHTS THAT VARY FROM STATE TO STATE;” this language appears to contradict Defendant’s argument that California law would be applied to a new action filed. (D’s Reply p. 3 lns. 7-8; Slabach Decl. Exh. A.) The Limited Warranty also states that only Indiana law may apply to controversies involving the parties. (Slabach Decl. Exh. A, p. 5.) Thus, Defendant failed to meet its burden of proof in showing that California law would apply in proceedings brought in Indiana if the motion were granted. Third, the Court’s review of the Limited Warranty leads to the conclusion that a number of provisions contradict or seek to limit the protections provided in the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: Owner’s Manual Provision Song-Beverly Provision THE FIRST RETAIL BUYER [...] ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER ANY CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES [...] Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of consequential or incidental damages, so the above exclusions may not apply to you. (Slabach Decl. Exh. A, pp. 1-2.) REPAIR REMEDY: Jayco’s Obligation is to repair any covered defect discovered within the warranty coverage period provided: (1) you notify Jayco or an authorized dealer within 10 days of your discovery of a defect; AND (2) you deliver the Motorhome to Jayco OR an authorized dealership at your cost and expense. BACK-UP REMEDY: If the primary repair remedy fails to successfully cure any defect after a reasonable number of repair attempts, your sole and exclusive remedy shall be to have Jayco pay an independent service shop of your choice to perform repairs to the defect OR have Jayco pay diminished value damages if the defect is incurable [...] Buyers may be entitled to replacement or reimbursement, or a civil penalty if the failure to comply was willful. (Civ. Code §§ 1793.2, subd. (d), 1794, subds. (b) and (c); Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2020) 9 Cal.5th 966, 978.) Buyers may be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. (Civ. Code § 1794, subd. (d).) Buyers are not precluded from seeking statutory penalties under Song-Beverly and punitive damages on alternative causes of action. (Anderson v. Ford Motor Co. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 946, 962, 966.) COVERAGE TIME: [...] ANY ACTION FOR BREACH OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY OR FOR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY MUST BE COMMENCED NO MORE THAN 26 MONTHS AFTER THE BREACH. [...] ANY ACTION FOR BREACH OF THIS REDUCED LIMITED WARRANTY OR FOR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY MUST BE COMMENCED NO MORE THAN 15 MONTHS AFTER THE BREACH. (Slabach Decl. Exh. A, p. 2.) LEGAL REMEDIES: [...] UNLESS PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW, ALL CLAIMS, CONTROVERSIES AND CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS LIMITED WARRANTY SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, INCLUDING ITS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO ANY CONFLICT OF LAW RULE THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION. (Slabach Decl. Exh. A, p. 5 [emphasis added].) Four-year statute of limitations generally applies to claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Comm. Code § 2725; Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 215.) ALL ACTIONS OF ANY KIND RELATING TO THE MOTOR HOME SHALL BE DECIDED BY A JUDGE RATHER THAN A JURY. (Slabach Decl. Exh. A, p. 5.) Predispute waivers of trial by jury are generally unenforceable, unless expressly allowable by statute. (Cal. Const. Art. I, § 16; Code Civ. Proc. § 631; Handoush v. Lease Finance Group, LLC (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 729, 736 [citing Grafton Partners, L.P. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 944, 951]; Rincon EV Realty LLC v. CP III Rincon Towers, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1, 11.) On these grounds, Defendant has not carried its burden to demonstrate that an Indiana forum will apply the same or greater rights as the nonwaivable rights under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. CONCLUSION The Motion to Stay is Denied. Plaintiffs shall prepare and serve an order following the hearing on this matter, if any. END TENTATIVE RULING. Parties may appear remotely, if oral argument is requested. Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr., Judge of the Superior Court

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 Plaintiff's motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is Granted. CCP Section 438. No opposition filed. This Court previously granted Plaintiff's motion to deem RFA's admitted, leaving no defense to the allegations in the Complaint. As a matter of law, Plaintiff is now entitled to Judgment. Court will sign Proposed Order & Judgment submitted with this motion Barbara A. Kronlund