Complaint for MID-L-003321-23 submitted by SOLOMON, JULIE BETH, RATCHFORD LAW GROUP, PC on behalf of NEW JERSEY HIGHER EDUCATION against MELISSA MURRAY, JACQUELIN P MURRAY June 14, 2023 (2024)

Case

341 Rt 34 Llc Vs Fernandez Demetri

Jul 24, 2024 |Bruce Kaplan |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004214-24

Case

Romanowski Curtis Vs Marinello Jennifer

Jul 23, 2024 |Christoph Rafano |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004186-24

Case

Romanowski Curtis Vs Curran-Hogrelius Christoph

Jul 23, 2024 |Christoph Rafano |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004185-24

Case

Patel Sanjay Vs Csaa General Insuran Ce Compan

Jul 24, 2024 |Joseph Rea |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004207-24

Case

Estate Of Stephen G. Baux Vs Wells Fargo Bank,

Jul 22, 2024 |Bina K Desai |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004174-24

Case

Case

Jacobs Lorraine Vs Capital One Bank (Us A), N.A.

Jul 24, 2024 |Joseph Rea |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004212-24

Case

Romanowski Curtis Vs Bellaro Michael

Jul 22, 2024 |Patrick Bradshaw |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004167-24

Case

Onemain Financial Gr Oup, Llc Vs Bass Jr Christo

Jul 23, 2024 |Bina K Desai |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004196-24

Ruling

GANN vs UDINSKY, et al.

Jul 25, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Breach of Rental/Lease Contra...) |23CV025487

23CV025487: GANN vs UDINSKY, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by Happy Homes Partners, LLC (Defendant) + in Department 25Tentative Ruling - 07/23/2024 Jenna WhitmanThe Motion to Compel Notice Of Defendants Bing Udinsky, Jerald Udinsky, And Happy HomePartners, Llcs Motion To Compel Elliot Ganns Responses To Special Interrogatories, FormInterrogatories, And Request For Production Of Documents And For Monetary Sanctions filedby Gerald Udinsky, Happy Homes Partners, LLC, Bing Udinsky on 06/25/2024 is Granted.BACKGROUND: This is a landlord-tenant dispute between plaintiff Elliot Gann and defendantsBing Udinsky, Gerald Udinsky, and Happy Home Partners LLC. Defendant Bing Udinskypropounded discovery requests on May 25, 2023. (Reilly Decl., ¶¶ 4–7.) As of the filing of thismotion, defendant had not received any responses to interrogatories and had received onlyunverified responses to requests for production. (Id., ¶ 18.) In the opposition brief, plaintiffindicated that he has served some unverified responses and represented that defendants wouldhave everything they were seeking by the time of the hearing on this motion. There is a factualdispute over whether plaintiff actually served all the unverified responses on defendants, but, inany case, plaintiff acknowledges that he has not served verified responses. Defendants move tocompel responses to Bing Udinsky’s requests.PROCEDURAL MATTERS: The court exercises its discretion to consider plaintiff’s late-filedopposition brief. (Cf. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300 [“If the court, in its discretion, refuses toconsider a late filed paper, the minutes or order must so indicate.”].) Plaintiffs’ counsel,however, is admonished that future failures to comply with court rules may result in sanctions.Late filings interfere with judicial efficiency and, absent a showing of good cause, unfairlycompress the time for other parties to respond.DISCUSSION: The Code of Civil Procedure requires that responses be made under oath unlessthey contain only objections. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a) [interrogatories];Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (a) [demands for inspection, copying, etc].) Unverifieddiscovery responses “are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Steven M. Garber & Assocs. v.Eskandarian (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 813, 817 fn. 4.) A party who fails to timely respond waivesany objection, “including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product,” to therequest. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)Monetary sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfullyoppose a motion to compel unless a court finds that they “one subject to the sanction acted withsubstantial justification or that other circ*mstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)Plaintiff argued that the motion should be denied because defense counsel did not meet in-person, by telephone, or by videoconference and did not request an IDC before filing thismotion. A section 2016.040 meet-and-confer declaration is not required where responses havenot been provided. (Compare, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310 with Code Civ. Proc., § SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV025487: GANN vs UDINSKY, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by Happy Homes Partners, LLC (Defendant) + in Department 252031.300.) The undersigned does not conduct IDCs, as indicated in the court’s standing order.Plaintiff has not established substantial justification for his failure to timely respond or any othercirc*mstances that would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Defense counsel hassubmitted declarations establishing reasonable rates and hours spent on this motion.ORDER: Defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED.· Within ten (10) days of notice of entry of this order, plaintiff must provide complete, code-compliant, and verified responses—without objections—to (1) Defendant Bing Udinsky’sSpecial Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1–73; (2) Defendant Bing Udinsky’s Form Interrogatories,Set One, Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6–12, 50; and (3) Defendant Bing Udinsky’s Requests for Production ofDocuments, Set One, Nos. 1–25.· Defendant Bing Udinsky is awarded $2,199.13 in sanctions against plaintiff and plaintiff’scounsel, jointly and severally, payable to defendant’s counsel of record within thirty (30) days ofnotice of entry of this order.PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the court’s order unless a party gives noticeof intent to contest by 4:00 pm the day before the hearing. If you wish to contest, do so throughthe eCourt portal: https://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/divisions/civil/tentative-rulings AND sendan email copying all parties and Department 25: dept25@alameda.courts.ca.gov

Ruling

ARKADY BERGER ET AL VS. DAVID DEDIA ET AL

Jul 25, 2024 |CGC23611334

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 25, 2024 line 4. DEFENDANT DAVID DEDIA, OLGA DEDIA MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT. Continued to August 1, 2024, pursuant to Local Rule 2.7B for Plaintiffs to lodge courtesy copies of the opposition papers, physical copies to be delivered to Department 501 by July 29, 2024.=(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.

Ruling

BRANDON BROOKS VS GOL 5 PROPERTIES, LLC., A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Jul 26, 2024 |23BBCV02845

Case Number: 23BBCV02845 Hearing Date: July 26, 2024 Dept: A LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK DEPARTMENT A TENTATIVE RULING JULY 26, 2024 DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 23BBCV02845 MP: Hami Golbar, Fred Golbar, and Gol 5 Properties, LLC (Defendants) RP: Brandon Brooks (Plaintiff) NOTICE: The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter. The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested. Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the partys intention to appear and argue. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received. Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412. ALLEGATIONS: Brandon Brooks (Plaintiff) brings this action against Hami Golbar, Fred Golbar, and Gol 5 Properties, LLC (collectively Defendants) associated with an apartment Plaintiff rented from Defendants (the Subject Property). Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to remedy a number of deficient conditions at the Subject Property. The Court previously sustained Defendants demurrer to various causes of action and Plaintiff has subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). Plaintiffs FAC contains 12 causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Statutory Breach of the Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code §§1941, 1941.1, And 1942.4), (3) Violation of Civil Code §1942.4, (4) Violation of Civil Code §1942.5, (5) Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability, (6) Violation of Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq., (7) Private Nuisance, (8) Negligence, (9) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), (10) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing, (11) Violation of LAMC 45.33, and (12) Violation of Civil Code § 789.3(a) As before, Defendants now generally demur to the causes of action for Private Nuisance and IIED on grounds that Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts. Defendants also move to strike Plaintiffs request for punitive damages. Plaintiff opposes and Defendants reply. ANALYSIS: I. LEGAL STANDARD The grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters. (C.C.P. § 430.30(a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318.) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Id.) A demurrer assumes the truth of all factual, material allegations properly pled in the challenged pleading. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.) No matter how unlikely or improbable, the plaintiffs allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 593, 604.) But this does not include contentions; deductions; conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at 318.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) §§ 430.10(e) and (f), the party against whom a complaint has been filed may demur to the pleading on the grounds that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or that the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous and/or unintelligible. It is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable probability that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1074, 1082.) Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings that are not challengeable by demurrer, such as words, phrases, and prayers for damages. (See C.C.P. §§ 435, 436, and 437.) The proper procedure to attack false allegations in a pleading is a motion to strike. (C.C.P. § 436(a).) In granting a motion to strike made under C.C.P. § 435, [t]he court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435 [notice of motion to strike whole or part of complaint], or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (C.C.P. § 436(a).) Irrelevant matters include immaterial allegations that are not essential to the claim or those not pertinent to or supported by an otherwise sufficient claim. (C.C.P. § 431.10.) The court may also [s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (C.C.P. § 436 (b).) II. MERITS Meet and Confer C.C.P. §§ 430.41(a) and 435.5(a) requires that the moving party meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the demurrer and/or motion to strike. Upon review the Court finds the meet and confer requirements were met. (Mantovani Decl. ¶ 4.) Facts Plaintiffs FAC contains an overarching facts section, which is incorporated by reference into each of his 12 causes of action. Plaintiff alleges that shortly after commencing tenancy, someone stole his parking spot (FAC. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff also alleges that his vehicle was vandalized after his parking spot was reassigned. (FAC ¶ 31.) Plaintiff alleges that the Subject Property had its gas service interrupted for a prolonged period of time for repairs. (FAC ¶ 34.) Plaintiff states that this interruption caused him to experience severe health symptoms because he could not use his fireplace and other gas appliances. (FAC ¶ 36.) Plaintiff alleges that the gas remains turned off for the building. (FAC ¶ 37.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants did not provide the necessary accommodations after he was furloughed during the Covid-19 pandemic. (FAC ¶ 40.) Instead, Plaintiff alleges he was served with a 3-day notice to quit which was followed by two unlawful detainer suits. (FAC ¶ 39.) Plaintiffs FAC also contains a list of alleged defective conditions of the Subject Property which include infestations, extensive water damage, and unsafe/unsanitary common areas. (FAC ¶ 28.) Plaintiff does not provide any further allegations as to the nature of these defects or when they occurred. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he has contacted Defendants with respect to these defects several times, but the problems persist. (FAC ¶ 43.) Plaintiff alleges he was forced to hire his own pest and mold inspection companies. (FAC ¶ 52.) Seventh COA Private Nuisance Sustained without Leave to Amend To establish an action for private nuisance, (1) the plaintiff must prove an interference with his use and enjoyment of his property; (2) the invasion of the plaintiffs interest in the use and enjoyment of the land must be substantial, that is, that it causes the plaintiff to suffer substantial actual damage; (3) the interference with the protected interest must not only be substantial, but it must also be unreasonable, i.e., it must be of such a nature, duration, or amount as to constitute unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the land. (Mendez v. Rancho Valencia Resort Partners, LLC (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 248, 262-263, [citations, italics, brackets, and quotation marks omitted].) The Court previously sustained the demurrer to this cause of action with leave to amend. The Court relied on the reasoning in El Escorial Owners Assn. v. DLC Plastering, Inc. which held Where negligence and nuisance causes of action rely on the same facts about lack of due care, the nuisance claim is a negligence claim. (El Escorial Owners Assn. v. DLC Plastering, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349.) The Court also cited Melton v. Boustred, which found that a demurrer is properly sustained where a nuisance claim is merely a clone of the negligence claim. (Melton v. Boustred (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 521, 542.) The Court found Plaintiffs arguments that his cause of action was not duplicative to be unpersuasive. Plaintiff argued that his nuisance cause of action differed from his negligence cause of action because it alleged both intentional and negligent behavior of Defendants. This argument is virtually unchanged in Plaintiffs current opposition. Likewise, the Court remains unpersuaded. The Courts previous ruling made clear that Plaintiff must allege facts specific to his nuisance claim if he wished it to survive demurrer. A review of the FAC shows that no such allegations are present. Plaintiff has added allegations that he had a possessory interest in the Subject Property. (FAC ¶ 125.) While this is an element of a private nuisance action, it does not speak to any specific behavior of Defendants in creating a nuisance. Plaintiff also has added a list of alleged actions by the Defendant to this cause of action. (FAC ¶ 128.) They are as follows: a. Failing to address hazardous gas leaks and exposure risks; b. Allowing infestations of vermin and pests to persist; c. Neglecting to remedy mold, mildew, and extensive water damage; d. Failing to replace essential safety features, such as the fireplace pilot exchanger; e. Providing inadequate heating and improper ventilation; f. Ignoring ongoing plumbing issues and unsafe or unsanitary common areas; g. Failing to maintain the safety and security of the Plaintiff's designated parking space, resulting in vandalism of Plaintiff's vehicle. (FAC ¶ 128.) The Court does not find these allegations are specific to Plaintiffs nuisance claim, particularly in light of the allegations in the cause of action for Negligence. In that cause of action Plaintiff alleges the Defendant negligently allow the following conditions: (1) mold and/or mildew; (2) water damage; (3) lack of effective waterproofing and weather protection; (4) lack of or decrease in unit services; (5) failure to timely replace the fireplace pilot exchanger; (6) inadequate heating devices; (7) gas exposure; (8) improper ventilation; (9) outgrown vegetation and unkept landscaping; and (10) inoperable central air condition, rendering the Subject Property substandard and untenantable as alleged herein. (FAC ¶ 143.) The Court notes that the vast majority of the conditions resulting from Defendants alleged negligence overlap with those resulting from Defendants alleged intentional behavior. All of the allegations in FAC paragraph 128 are attributable to either intentional acts or negligence and none of the allegations are accompanied by specific facts indicating intentional behavior. Further, to the extent that Plaintiffs negligence action does not explicitly mention the parking situation, the Court notes the FAC contains no allegations that this situation arose from Defendants intentional actions. Plaintiff merely alleges that he complained of the parking situation and Defendants response was markedly deficient. (FAC ¶ 31.) The Court finds the additional allegations upon amendment are insufficient to set Plaintiffs claim of Private Nuisance apart from his claim of Negligence. As Plaintiff has had previous opportunity to allege additional facts speaking specifically to nuisance and has failed to do so, the Court finds it improbable that further amendment would cure this deficiency. Accordingly, the demurrer to the cause of action for Private Nuisance is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Ninth COA IIED Sustained with Leave to Amend The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiffs suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendants outrageous conduct. Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community. (Wilson v. Hynek (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 999, 1009, [citation and ellipses omitted].) The Court previously sustained the demurrer to this cause of action, finding Plaintiff had not sufficiently pled intentional conduct. Specifically, the Court focused on the Defendants alleged refusal to remediate, given that courts have preciously found IIED claims proper in situations where a landlord has outright refused to remediate habitability issues. (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057.) The Court found that the facts alleged in the Complaint did not indicate a complete refusal to remediate. Plaintiff alleged he emailed about various conditions on October 20, 2021, July 14, 2022, August 26, 2022, April 12, 2023, and April 13, 2023. (Compl. ¶ 41.) At the same time, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants responses have been inconsistent and inadequate, allowing the infestation and unsanitary conditions to persist. (Compl. ¶ 52.) The Court found this latter allegation indicated that some remediation had taken place but that it was insufficient to remedy Plaintiffs concerns. The Court notes that such insufficient response was not akin to an intentional refusal to remediate. Upon amendment Plaintiff has removed the above referenced allegation that Defendants response was inconsistent and inadequate. Instead, Plaintiff now pleads that, &[d]espite Plaintiffs continual appeals regarding the aforementioned infestations and substandard conditions within the subject property, Defendants have completely ignored each of these requests& (FAC ¶ 54.) First the Court notes that there are no specific allegations as to which requests have been responded to and which have been ignored. From Plaintiffs FAC it is clear that he has complained on multiple occasions to Defendants about various conditions at the Subject Property. (See FAC ¶ 24, 45, 188.) Regardless, Plaintiff only alleges that Defendants were not responsive to an email in early April (FAC ¶ 45) and an email on April 27, 2023 (FAC ¶ 47.) This leaves the prior year and half of complaints, including emails specifically identified in paragraph 24, unaccounted for. Further, there is a complete lack of particularity in identifying the subject of these complaints. It appears from Plaintiffs FAC that his complaints regarding the parking situation received some sort of response, as he alleges that Defendants response was markedly deficient. (FAC ¶ 29.) This indicates that Defendants were responding at least in some capacity to some of Plaintiffs complaints. Further, Plaintiffs allegations that Defendants were unresponsive to the April emails is equally indicative of negligence as it is intentional behavior. If Plaintiff wishes to state a claim for IIED based on Defendants intentional refusal to remediate, it is incumbent upon him to allege facts showing such refusal occurred. Lastly, Plaintiffs substituting of inconsistent and inadequate for the allegation that he was completely ignored does little to assuage concerns regarding the sham pleading doctrine. The sham pleading doctrine generally prohibits a plaintiff from amending a complaint to omit harmful allegations from prior pleadings, without explanation. (Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408, 425.) Under the sham pleading doctrine, [a] plaintiff may not avoid a demurrer by pleading facts or positions in an amended complaint that contradict facts pleaded in the original complaint, or by suppressing facts which prove the pleaded facts false. (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corporation (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 877-878.) Here, Plaintiff has added no allegations which explain his previous contention that Defendants response was inadequate rather than an outright refusal to remediate. Plaintiffs amendment is not so much an addition of facts as a substituting of language. Despite the above, the Court finds the FAC contains sufficient information such that the Court believes sufficient facts can be pled to support the claim if they exist. Although Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently articulate these as of yet, it remains possible he could do so. Accordingly, the demurrer to this cause of action is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. Motion to Strike Defendants seek to strike Plaintiffs request for punitive damages and all references to Defendants conduct as malicious oppressive despicable or outrageous. (See FAC ¶¶ 93, 99, 100, 101, 115, 167, 1280 182.) The Court notes that Plaintiffs punitive damages claims are, at least in part, derived from the IIED cause of action. Given the Court has sustained the demurrer to that cause of action with leave to amend, Defendants motion strike punitive damages is MOOT. --- RULING: In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the courts records. ORDER Hami Golbar, Fred Golbar, and Gol 5 Properties, LLCs Demurrer and Motion to Strike came on regularly for hearing on July 26, 2024 with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: THE DEMURRER TO THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. THE DEMURRER TO THE NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS MOOT. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR AUGUST 27, 2024 IS ADVANCED AND CONTINUED ON THE COURTS MOTION TO NOVEMBER 12, 2024 AT 9:00 AM UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT GOL 5 TO GIVE NOTICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: July 26, 2024 _______________________________ F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles

Ruling

Catherine Alexandra Oliveras vs OWOW LLC et al

-

Ruling

EDGE H2O, LLC vs INFINIUM AIR, INC, et al.

Jul 25, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Negligent Breach of Contract/...) |22CV023381

22CV023381: EDGE H2O, LLC vs INFINIUM AIR, INC, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by PAS, Inc. (Defendant) in Department 518Tentative Ruling - 07/23/2024 Victoria KolakowskiThe Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by PAS, Inc. (Defendant)scheduled for 07/25/2024 is continued to 09/12/2024 at 02:30 PM in Department 518 at HaywardHall of Justice .I. BackgroundEdge H2O, LLC claims that on August 2, 2018, Infinium Air, Inc. installed a defective HVACsystem at Edge H2O’s indoor cannabis cultivation rooms, causing a loss of crop yield anddegradation of crop quality. (Compl. ¶¶ 9–13, Dec. 8, 2022.) Edge filed a complaint againstPAS, Inc., among others, asserting causes of action for negligence and products liability. (Id. ¶¶15–30.) PAS filed an answer, generally the allegations and asserting several affirmativedefenses. (PAS’s Answer, Mar. 20, 2023.)After appearing, PAS served document requests, form interrogatories (general), specialinterrogatories, and requests for admission. (Bodnar Decl. ¶ 2, May 13, 2024; see also id. Ex. A(copy of form interrogatories).) In September 2023, Edge responded. (Id. ¶ 3; see also id. Ex. B(copy of responses).) The following month, PAS emailed Edge a letter, noting what PASperceived as deficient responses. (Id. Ex. C.) In November 2023, Edge responded andrepresented it would serve amended responses. (Id. Ex. D; see also id. Ex. E (showingsubsequent emails between the parties).) In March 2024, Edge served its amended responses. (Id.Ex. F.) PAS emailed its second letter, noting what it perceived as deficient responses. (Id. ¶ 8.)Edge responded it would provide responses by May 10, 2024. (Id. Ex. H.)The following Monday, May 13, 2024, PAS moved to compel further responses to the forminterrogatories and for a $3,636.00 sanction. (Mot.) Edge opposed. (Opp’n Mem., July 12, 2024.)II. DiscussionThe Court finds the parties’ meet and confer efforts are marginal. This Court requires the partiesto meet and confer either in-person or by telephone or video conference. (See Loc. R. 3.31.)PAS’s two letters and follow up emails were insufficient.The Court notes that the length of the separate statement (33 pages)—which only addresses forminterrogatories 7.1, 8.7 17.1—demonstrates that the parties’ dispute has not been sufficientlynarrowed to its absolute minimum. (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 toforce lawyers to reexamine their positions, and to narrow their discovery disputes to theirreducible minimum, before calling upon the court to resolve the matter.”) (citing Stewart v.Colonial W. Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1016).) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV023381: EDGE H2O, LLC vs INFINIUM AIR, INC, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by PAS, Inc. (Defendant) in Department 518In the interest of resolving this dispute, the Court elects to continue the hearing on this motion toallow the parties to further meet and confer about the adequacy of Edge’s responses to the forminterrogatories.IV. OrdersThe 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 orderof preference)—on more than one occasion if necessary—to discuss the adequacy of Edge’sresponses to the form interrogatories.If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, the parties must submit a joint separatestatement no later than August 29, 2024, containing the information prescribed by Rule of Court3.1345(c) and detailing the parties’ subsequent meet and confer efforts. The joint separatestatement may not exceed 15 pages.PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentativeruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court daypreceding 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 andcopy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in thesubject 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 casenumber), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest thisRuling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contestingthe tentative, and click "Proceed."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 RoomJoin ZoomGov Meetinghttps://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV023381: EDGE H2O, LLC vs INFINIUM AIR, INC, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by PAS, Inc. (Defendant) in Department 518Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984One tap mobile+16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose)+14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)---Dial by your location• +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)

Ruling

Quantum International LLC vs. Amberwood Concord Homeowner's Association

Jul 17, 2024 |C23-01402

C23-01402CASE NAME: QUANTUM INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. AMBERWOOD HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION*HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULTFILED BY: AMBERWOOD HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION*TENTATIVE RULING:*The defendant homeowner’s association filed this motion to set aside a default judgment on May 29,2024. The plaintiff was served by mail on June 3, 2024. As of June 8, 2024, no opposition has beenfiled. The motion to set aside the default judgment is granted for the reasons set forth in defendant’smoving papers. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CA DEPARTMENT 27 JUDICIAL OFFICER: TERRI MOCKLER HEARING DATE: 07/17/2024

Ruling

LELAND SPELMAN, ET AL VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL

Jul 25, 2024 |CIV2202485

DATE: 07/19/24 TIME: 1:30 P.M. DEPT: E CASE NO: CIV2202485PRESIDING: HON. ANDREW SWEETREPORTER: CLERK:PLAINTIFF: LELAND SPELMAN, ETAL vs.DEFENDANT: STATE FARM GENERALINSURANCE COMPANY, ET ALNATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: 1) MOTION — RELIEVE COUNSEL2) CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE3) MOTION — RELIEVE COUNSEL RULINGThe following persons are ordered to appear: 1 Merlin Law Group (counsel for Leland Spelman, Linnea Carlson, and Julian Spelman) 2. Leland Spelman, Linnea Carlson, and Julian Spelman All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B)to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear inperson or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument inaccordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with theannounced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11. The Zoom appearance information for July, 2024 is as follows: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1605153328?pwd=eUU1 OE9BTG5tWHgrOFNK Mm Vvd2tFQT09 Meeting ID: 160 515 3328 Passcode: 360075 If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling 1-669-254-5252and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found onthe Court’s website: marin,.courts.ca.go

Ruling

Campbell, Darla Alice et al vs. General Motors LLC

Aug 05, 2024 |S-CV-0052508

S-CV-0052508 Campbell, Darla Alice et al vs. General Motors LLCNOTE: Defendant has not paid advance jury fees pursuant to CCP § 631.Trial Date & Length: 11/10/25 5 day Jury Trial(Please contact Master Calendar (916) 408-6061 on the business dayprior to the scheduled trial date to find courtroom availability.)Civil Trial Conference: 10/31/25(heard at 8:30 am in Dept. 3)Mandatory Settlement Conference: 10/24/25(heard at 8:30am; report to Jury Services)NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED UNLESS REQUESTED BY PARTY BY 3PM ONTHE THURSDAY PRIOR TO HEARING DATE. REQUESTS FORAPPEARANCE MUST BE FAXED TO THE CIVIL DEPARTMENT, ATTN: CMCCLERK AT (916) 408-6275, AND TO ALL OPPOSING ATTORNEYS ANDPARTIES WITHOUT ATTORNEYS BY 3:00 PM THE THURSDAY PRIOR TOTHE CASE MANAGEMENT DATE. SEE LOCAL RULE 20.1.7.

Document

Deirdre M. Richards Vs Humetis Group Inc

Jul 23, 2024 |Joseph Rea |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004204-24

Document

Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. Vs Ducane Charlene

Jul 24, 2024 |Gary K Wolinetz |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004223-24

Document

Stone Karen Vs Mount Shawn

Jul 25, 2024 |J R Corman |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004257-24

Document

Castillo Sara Vs Patel Neil

Jul 25, 2024 |Benjamin S Bucca |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004247-24

Document

Deirdre M. Richards Vs Humetis Group Inc

Jul 23, 2024 |Joseph Rea |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004204-24

Document

341 Rt 34 Llc Vs Fernandez Demetri

Jul 24, 2024 |Bruce Kaplan |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004214-24

Document

Jacobs Lorraine Vs Capital One Bank (Us A), N.A.

Jul 24, 2024 |Joseph Rea |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004212-24

Document

Deirdre M. Richards Vs Humetis Group Inc

Jul 23, 2024 |Joseph Rea |Contract/Commercial Transaction |MIDL004204-24