DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.’S AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.’S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES June 12, 2006 (2024)

Case

PEREZ, JULIO CESAR CAMPOS vs. JUAREZ, DENIS

Aug 20, 2024 |JACLANEL M. MCFARLAND |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |202454810

Case

CORTIZ, GRACIELA (AS NEXT FRIEND OF A.R., A MINOR) vs. TARGET CORPORATION

Dec 11, 2023 |RAVI K. SANDILL |Premises |Premises |202385034

Case

ARIF, MUHAMMAD vs. TUBBS, KATINA LECHELLE

Nov 30, 2023 |KYLE CARTER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202382982

Case

PORTER, REAGEN vs. PRUDE, BRANDON

Aug 21, 2024 |LAUREN REEDER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202455132

Case

TREJO TORRES, OBED vs. HERNANDEZ, ELVIRA

Aug 22, 2024 |ROBERT K. SCHAFFER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202455485

Case

MIAKHIL, NAZIR AHMAD vs. GREEN, JASON DAVID

Aug 20, 2024 |MIKE ENGELHART |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202454697

Case

MONTEMAYOR, SANDRA LUCIA vs. BREWSTER, RUSSELL

Dec 07, 2023 |TANYA GARRISON |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202384581

Case

LUNA, ARIEL vs. CERDA, MELINDA

Dec 15, 2023 |LAUREN REEDER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202385935

Case

WILLIAMS, BILLY vs. VELASQUEZ, NITZA GUEVARA

Aug 21, 2024 |ROBERT K. SCHAFFER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202455145

Ruling

ARIZA VS FRANCO

Aug 14, 2024 |MSC19-02245

MSC19-02245CASE NAME: ARIZA VS FRANCO *HEARING ON MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED TRUTH OF FACTS SPECIFIEDIN REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONEFILED BY: ARIZA, UBALDO*TENTATIVE RULING:*The plaintiffs filed this motion to deem admitted certain facts specified in a Request for Admissions,set one. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.The plaintiffs filed this action in October 2019, against defendant Alejandra Franco and others,alleging negligence, fraud, rescission of agreement, invasion of privacy, and declaratory relief. Theplaintiffs contend defendant Franco and others forged their signatures on title documents forproperty in Richmond, California, which plaintiffs did not buy or sell. The plaintiffs allege that theircredit rating has been damaged because of the defendants’ actionsOn March 6, 2024, the plaintiffs served Request for Admissions, Set one, on the defendant. Plaintiff’scounsel sent a meet and confer letter on April 30, 2024. Defendant Franco never responded to theRequest for Admissions or to the meet and confer letter. The plaintiffs filed this present motion onMay 9, 2024. No opposition has been filed to the motion.DispositionThe plaintiffs’ motion to deem admissions admitted is granted. The following facts are deemedadmitted: 1) Alejandra Franco is liable to the plaintiffs for negligence; 2) Alejandra Franco is liable tothe plaintiffs for negligence per se; 3) Alejandra Franco is liable to the plaintiffs for fraud as alleged inthe complaint; 4) Alejandra Franco is liable to the plaintiffs for invasion of privacy as alleged in thecomplaint; 5) Alejandra Franco is liable to the plaintiffs for declaratory relief as alleged in thecomplaint; 6) Alejandra Franco admits that the plaintiffs are entitled to rescission of agreement forfraud as alleged in the complaint; and 7) Alejandra Franco admits the plaintiffs are entitled torescission of agreement for mistake as alleged in the complaint.Counsel for the plaintiffs is entitled to fees and costs associated with bringing this motion pursuant toCode of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. Therefore, the defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiffs’counsel $850 by August 30, 2024.

Ruling

RICKEY BALL, AN INDIVIDUAL VS MARIA DE LOURDES MEDRANO BERNARDINO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Case Number: 21STCV46360 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: 29 Ball v. Bernardino 21STCV46360 Defendants Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One) Defendants Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One) Defendants Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production (Set One) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, filed by Plaintiffs Counsel Elina Shakhbazyan of Downtown LA Law Group. Tentative The motions are granted. Background On December 20, 2021, Rickey Ball (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Maria De Lourdes Medrano Bernadino, Francisco Estrada Perez (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident occurring on January 5, 2020. On September 6, 2023, Defendants filed an answer. There are four motions set for hearing on August 21. On June 13, 2024, Defendants filed three motions to compel Plaintiffs responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production (Set One). Plaintiff filed a combined opposition on July 9, 2024. No reply was filed. The hearings on these motions were initially scheduled for July 22 and were continued to August 21. On June 14, 2024, Elina Shakhbazyan of Downtown LA Law Group (Counsel) filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. No opposition has been filed. The hearing on this motion was initially scheduled for July 18 and was continued to August 21. Legal Standard Motions to Compel A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) When a party moves to compel initial responses to interrogatories, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes [the motion], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circ*mstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) When a party moves to compel initial responses to requests for production, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes [the motion], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circ*mstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines [m]isuses of the discovery process to include [f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of the reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020, subd. (a).) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 284(b).) An attorney is permitted to withdraw where conflicts between the attorney and client make it unreasonable to continue the representation. (See Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1).) The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.) An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a)), MC-052 (Declaration) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.136(c)), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e)). Further, the requisite forms must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) The court may delay effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) Discussion Motions to Compel On September 6, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with discovery including Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production. (Goodwin Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff has not responded. (Id., ¶ 5.) Defendants need not show anything more. The motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and the Request for Production are GRANTED. Defendants do not seek sanctions. Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Counsel has filed the Notice, Declaration, and Order to be relieved as counsel. On the Declaration, Counsel states there has been a breakdown in of the attorney-client relationship. Counsel served Plaintiff by mail and electronic mail at Plaintiffs last known email address. Counsel further attempted to confirm the Plaintiffs current address by mailing the motion papers to the last known address with return receipt requested, called Plaintiffs last known telephone number, sent Plaintiff contact letters, left voicemails and ran a TLO search. The Order includes all future hearing dates. The Court finds Counsel has established good cause to be relieved due to the breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Conclusion The Court GRANTS the Motions to Compel Plaintiff Rickey Ball to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One). The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendants Form Interrogatories within 21 days of notice of this order. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendants Special Interrogatories within 21 days of notice of this order. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendants Requests for Production within 21 days of notice of this order. The motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED. The order is effective upon the filing with the Court of proof of service showing service of the signed order on Plaintiff. Defendants are ORDERED to give notice as to the motions to compel. Plaintiff's Counsel is ORDERED to give notice as to the motion to be relieved.

Ruling

Alexander Family Trust vs. Simao, et al.

Aug 22, 2024 |23CV-0203196

ALEXANDER FAMILY TRUST VS. SIMAO, ET AL.Case Number: 23CV-0203196This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of settlement and trial setting. The previoustrial dates were vacated by the Court’s June 6, 2024 Order. Plaintiff’s claims against Safeco werebifurcated March 15, 2024, and trial of Plaintiffs claims against Safeco were to follow resolutionof the claims against the other Defendants. Case management statements have been filed, but it isunclear which parties, if any, have reached a settlement. At the last hearing on June 17, 2024,Counsel indicated that all parties except for Safeco had settled. However, notices of settlementand dismissals are not on file for any party. Additionally, Jacqueline Simao’s Cross-Complaint,filed November 13, 2023, against Allen & Roth and Lowe’s Home Improvement has not beenserved.The Court designates this matter a Plan II case and intends to set the matter for trial no later thanMarch 11, 2025. Defendants have posted jury fees, but Plaintiff has not. Plaintiff is granted 10days leave to post jury fees. A failure to post jury fees in that time will be deemed a waiver of theright to a jury. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with status ofsettlement as to Defendants Simao, Rayfifield and 2584 Reservoir Lane, and to discussavailable trial dates as to Defendant Safeco.

Ruling

BRIAN BEAN VS FM RESTAURANTS EL TORITO OPCO LLC, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Aug 21, 2024 |6/18/2022 |23SMCV05675

Case Number: 23SMCV05675 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: I The demurrer relies on a declaration to make its point. Testimonial declarations are not proper for the court to consider in demurrer. Nor is there a plausible or cogent argument suggesting that a testimonial declaration is subject to judicial notice. The demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant has 5 court days to answer. The short period is advertent.

Ruling

FCS057573 - PEREZ, HEIDI JUDITH VS BOOKER, WESLEY (DMS)

Aug 20, 2024 |FCS057573

FCS057573Motions for ContemptTENTATIVE RULING:Petitioner’s “motions” for contempt are denied.No affidavit of the facts constituting any contempt has been presented to thecourt. The filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to acontempt 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

Ruling

RACHEL TABB VS MATTHEW TYLER RAY, ET AL.

Case Number: 23STCV05733 Hearing Date: August 19, 2024 Dept: 29 Tabb v. Ray 23STCV05733 Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff Rachel Tabb and Produce Documents filed by Defendants Matthew Tyler Ray and Counsel Productions LLC. Motion to Compel Compliance with Request for Production filed by Defendant Counsel Productions LLC. Tentative The motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition and produce documents is denied without prejudice. The motion to compel compliance is granted. The request for sanctions is denied. Background On March 15, 2023, Rachel Tabb (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Matthew Tyler Ray (Ray), Counsel Productions LLC (Counsel), and Does 1 through 10, for negligence arising out of an automobile accident on March 24, 2022, at or near the intersection of North Cahuenga Boulevard and Ivar Avenue in Los Angeles. Ray and Counsel filed their answer on June 6. 2023. On June 12, 2024, Counsel filed the two motions that are set for hearing on August 19: (1) Counsels motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition and product documents and (2) Counsels motion to compel Plaintiff to comply with her representation in verified responses to document requests that she would produce documents. No opposition has been filed. On July 16, 2024, Defendants filed replies. The hearings on these motions were initially set for July 23 and were continued by the Court to August 19. Legal Standard Motion to Compel Deposition Any party may obtain discovery & by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.210 through 2025.280 provide the requirements for (among other things) what must be included in a deposition notice, when and where depositions may be taken, and how and when the notice must be served. The service of a deposition notice & is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying. (Id., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) Section 2025.230 provides: If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent. Section 2025.410, subdivision (a), requires any party to serve a written objection at least three days before the deposition if the party contends that a deposition notice does not comply with the provisions of sections 2025.210 through 2025.280. Section 2025.450, subdivision (a), provides: If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for¿inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponents attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. Any such motion to compel must show good cause for the production of documents and, when a deponent has failed to appear, the motion must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Id., subd. (b).) Motion to Compel Compliance with Request for Production In response to a document request, the responding party must set forth (1) a statement of compliance; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; or (3) an objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).) If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling & thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that partys statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).) [T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circ*mstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (b).) Discussion Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Deposition On March 12, 2024, Counsel first noticed Plaintiffs deposition for May 2, 2024. (Blair Decl., ¶ 6.) The parties met and conferred, and postponed the deposition. (Id., ¶ 8.) On April 30, 2024, Counsel served the second notice of deposition for May 31, 2024; Plaintiffs counsel informed Counsel that he would be away that date. (Id. ̧¶¶ 11, 13.) On May 16, 2024, the parties agreed to set Plaintiffs deposition for June 19; Counsel served the third notice of deposition on May 29, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 14, 16.) Before the scheduled deposition date, Counsel filed this motion. After the motion was filed, on June 17, Plaintiff served untimely objections to the deposition notice. (Reply Blair Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. G.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff did appear for the deposition and Plaintiff did produce some documents, while failing to produce others. (Id., ¶¶ 2, 5, 6-9 & Exhs H-I.) Counsels motion is denied without prejudice. The deposition has occurred. Counsel now contends that Plaintiffs document production was improperly incomplete, and Counsel seeks an order compelling a further production, but Counsel has not given Plaintiff (or the Court) adequate notice as to the relief Counsel seeks including which document requests, Counsel contends, should be the subject of the order for further production. Motion to Compel Compliance with Request for Production Counsel filed this motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with her statement of compliance. On September 21, 2023, Counsel propounded discovery, including document requests, to Plaintiff. Plaintiff served responses on November 27, 2023. (Blair Decl., ¶¶ 6, 8 & Exhs. A-B.) In Plaintiffs responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1-4, and 6-17, Plaintiff represented that she would comply with the requests (in whole or in part). (Id., Exh. B.) At least as of the time the motion was filed, however, Plaintiff had failed to produce documents as promised in her statement of complaint. (Id., ¶¶ 10, 18, & 23.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Accordingly, the motion is granted. The request for sanctions is denied. In the notice of motion and motion, Counsel does not state the amount of sanctions sought, as is required. Conclusion The Court DENIES, without prejudice, the motion of Counsel Productions LLC to compel Plaintiff to attend her deposition and to produce documents. The Court GRANTS the motion of Counsel Productions LLC to compel compliance. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Rachel Tabb to comply with her statement of compliance and produce the documents that she represented that she would produce in response to Requests for Production Nos. 1-4, and 6-17 within 15 days of notice of this order. The Court DENIES the request of Counsel Productions LLC for sanctions. Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.

Ruling

Aug 19, 2024 |23CV-0202671

FORRESTER VS. M&M MEYERS ENTERPRISES, INC, ET AL.Case Number: 23CV-0202671This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of default judgment. The Court notes thatPlaintiff attempted to file a Request for Court Judgement. It was rejected by the Clerk because theDoe Defendants have not yet been dismissed. This matter is continued to Monday, September16, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64 for review regarding status of default judgment. Noappearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Ruling

VALENZUELA vs MENJIVAR

Aug 20, 2024 |CVSW2310366

MOTION TO COMPEL BY MARIACVSW2310366 VALENZUELA VS MENJIVARMENJIVARTentative Ruling: GRANT. Mr. Torres is to make himself available for a deposition within 30days of this order. DENY sanctions because the circ*mstances are unjust given that the court hasmade itself available for an informal discovery conference. If Mr. Torres fails to appear a secondtime, then the moving party should request an IDC. If after further intervention Mr. Torres refusesto cooperate, then the court will likely award full sanctions (to include attorney’s fees and costs).

Document

BEIZAEE, BITA vs. HACHMEISTER, ANDREW

Dec 04, 2023 |LAUREN REEDER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202383403

Document

CASTEEL, EBONY vs. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Dec 06, 2023 |TANYA GARRISON |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202384174

Document

HICKS, AMBER (INDIVIDUALLY ANF OF T B) (A MINOR) vs. BACON, MARCUS D

Dec 04, 2023 |CORY SEPOLIO |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202383497

Document

MERAZ, ESTELA MELERO vs. LOPEZ, WILSON JEHOVANY FLORES

Dec 06, 2023 |KRISTEN BRAUCHLE HAWKINS |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202384142

Document

FUENTES, JUAN vs. GEICO COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Oct 26, 2023 |C. ELLIOTT THORNTON |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202374831

Document

MANZO, ALEXANDER vs. IWUEZE, EMMANUEL CHINAKA

Oct 26, 2023 |BEAU MILLER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202374665

Document

NELSON, ROBERT vs. ELEVA APARTMENTS

Oct 25, 2023 |KYLE CARTER |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |202374573

Document

MADERA, SEAN vs. JARRAH, MUHAMMAD AMMAN

Dec 04, 2023 |LATOSHA LEWIS PAYNE |TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE |TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE |202383675