EXHIBIT(S) - A (Motion #002) - Affidavit of Service - Verified Bill of Particulars August 31, 2020 (2024)

Case

Angela Burke Azeez v. The City Of New York, Police Officers Moreno, Officers John Does And Jane Does 1-10, SAID NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS AND PRESENTLY UNKNOWN

Aug 08, 2024 |Torts - Other (False Arrest) |Torts - Other (False Arrest) |716461/2024

Case

John Cardinali v. Bj'S Wholesale Club, Inc., Bj'S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., Cp Property Owner, Llc

Aug 15, 2024 |Torts - Other Negligence (FALL PREMISES) |Torts - Other Negligence (FALL PREMISES) |716814/2024

Case

Denny Hernandez-Almonte, Oscar Almonte, Yunior Chuxvi v. Guillermo L. Ruiz-Fonseca, United Parcel Service, Inc.

Aug 14, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |716700/2024

Case

Evelyn De Jesus v. 8910s Llc, 99 Construction Inc., The City Of New York

Aug 13, 2024 |Torts - Other (Premises) |Torts - Other (Premises) |716585/2024

Case

Xing Feng Chen v. Francia Amaya

Aug 16, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |716927/2024

Case

Bristol West Insurance A/S/O Shavar Mcfadden v. Kiani Phoenix

Aug 14, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |716735/2024

Case

Adriano Peralta v. Roy Persaud

Aug 16, 2024 |Torts - Other (Premises Liability) |Torts - Other (Premises Liability) |716925/2024

Case

Firoza Yeasmin, Mohammad Haq v. Elizabeth Martinez, Andrew Martinez

Aug 13, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |716680/2024

Case

Dane Williams v. New York City Transit Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Mta Bus Company, John Doe name presently unknown

Aug 02, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |715958/2024

Ruling

Ralph Millar vs Jim Hart

Aug 12, 2024 |24CV01191

24CV01191MILLAR v. HART (UNOPPOSED) DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER As discussed below, the unopposed demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. I. BACKGROUND AND COMPLAINT Plaintiff Ralph Millar, in pro per, filed this complaint on April 25, 2024, againstdefendant Jim Hart, Santa Cruz County Sheriff, and alleges general negligence, intentional tort,and premises liability and seeks exemplary/punitive damages. Millar asserts that on February 16,2023, while he was incarcerated at the county jail, defendants moved him into an activequarantine unit, thereby intentionally and maliciously infecting him with Covid, causingpermanent injuries. Defendant demurrers to the complaint in its entirety in that it fails to state facts sufficientto constitute a cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision(e); the claims are time barred under the California Tort Claims Act; and that defendant isimmune from liability per the discretionary immunity found under Government Code sections820.2 and 815.2, subdivision (b) and Government Code section 820.8. II. DISCUSSION A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading. (Brown v. Los Angeles Unified SchoolDist. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1103.) We accept as true all material facts properly pleaded inthe complaint, but do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact andlaw." (Id.) However, "[a] party may not avoid demurrer by suppressing facts, including those thatare judicially noticeable, which prove the pleaded facts false." (Gentry v. eBay, Inc. (2002) 99Cal.App.4th 816, 824.) Where facts appearing in attached exhibits or judicially noticed documentscontradict, or are inconsistent with, the complaint’s allegations, we must rely on the facts in theexhibits and judicially noticed documents." (Genis v. Schainbaum (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1007,1015.) “‘When a ground for objection to a complaint, such as the statute of limitations, appearson its face or from matters of which the court may or must take judicial notice, a demurrer on thatground is proper.’ [Citation.]” (Vaca v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp.(2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 737,746.) Page 1 of 18 Government Code section 945.6, subdivision (a), states that “[e]xcept as provided inSections 946.4 and 946.6 and subject to subdivision (b), any suit brought against a public entityon a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1(commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of thisdivision must be commenced: (1) If written notice is given in accordance with Section 913, not later than six months after the date such notice is personally delivered or deposited in the mail. (2) If written notice is not given in accordance with Section 913, within two years from the accrual of the cause of action. If the period within which the public entity is required to act is extended pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 912.4, the period of such extension is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action under this paragraph.” Pursuant to Government Code section 950.6, subdivision (b), a suit against the publicemployee must be commenced within the same time mandated by section 945.6 for bringing anaction against a public entity. “The six-month statute of limitations in Gov. Code, § 945.6 (governing suits againstpublic entities on causes for which a claim must be presented), means an action must be filedwithin six calendar months or 182 days, whichever is longer.” (Gonzales v. County of L.A.(1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 601, 602.) The complaint before the court is time-barred. While a demurrer is generally restricted tothe four corners of the pleadings, the court can take judicial notice of the rejection letter sent bythe county, dated August 11, 2023. (RJN, Ex. B.) “If a plaintiff alleges compliance with theclaims presentation requirement, but the public records do not reflect compliance, thegovernmental entity can request the court to take judicial notice under Evidence Code section452, subdivision (c) that the entity's records do not show compliance.” (Gong v. City ofRosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 376.) The County rejected plaintiff’s claim on August11, 2023. Plaintiff then had six months from this date by which to file suit, which expiredFebruary 11, 2024. Plaintiff did not file this complaint until April 25, 2024. There is no opposition. The court declines to rule on the remainder of the issues raised inthe demurer given that the failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitations disposes ofthe complaint in its entirety. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 1. Plaintiff’s June 20, 2023 tort claim. Granted. Page 2 of 18 2. The County’s August 11, 2023 “Notice of Action on Claim”, denying plaintiff’s tort claim. Granted. 3. Complaint in this action, filed April 25, 2024. Granted.Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal orderincorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating thetentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, inaccordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if theprevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative issimply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition ofsanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

Ruling

ZAYDA L. MUNOZ MENJIVAR VS NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL, ET AL.

Aug 16, 2024 |24CHCV01418

Case Number: 24CHCV01418 Hearing Date: August 16, 2024 Dept: F43 Dept. F43 Date: 8-16-24 Case #24CHCV01418, Zayda L. Munoz Menjivar vs. Northridge Hospital, et al. Trial Date: N/A MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS SUBPOENAS MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Zayda L. Munoz Menjivar RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed. RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff seeks to quash Defendants subpoenas seeking Plaintiffs medical records from various entities. RULING: Parties are ordered to meet and confer. SUMMARY OF ACTION AND ANALYSIS On Aril 18, 2024, Plaintiff Zayda L. Munoz Menjivar (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Dignity Community Care dba Northridge Hospital Medical Center (Defendant). Plaintiff has alleged professional negligence against Defendant for allegedly failing to remove all of the gauze from Plaintiffs body after she had a C-section. Another hospital, West Hills Hospital, removed the gauze from Plaintiffs body. On May 22, 2024, Defendant issued seven subpoenas to Complete Care Community Health Center, CHA Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, and West Hills Hospital & Medical Center. Defendant is seeking any and all of Plaintiffs medical, billing, radiology, and insurance records, regardless of date. (Aziz Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 3.) On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff served a meet and confer letter objecting to Defendants subpoenas. (Aziz Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 4.) Plaintiff proposed that Defendant could limit its subpoenas so that they only seek records that are relevant to the C-section surgery which forms the basis for this action. Plaintiff indicates that Defendant never provided any sort of response to Plaintiffs meet and confer letter. (Aziz Decl., ¶ 5.) After not receiving any response, Plaintiff filed this motion to quash Defendants subpoenas on June 14, 2024, arguing that they are overbroad because they seek the entirety of Plaintiffs medical history regardless of date. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants subpoenas violate her right to privacy, that the records sought are not directly relevant and essential to the action, that Defendant cannot show that there are no less intrusive means for obtaining the information sought, and that Defendant cannot show that the need for production outweighs Plaintiffs right to privacy. No opposition has been filed by Defendant. No substantive meet and confer occurred. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiffs letter, despite Plaintiffs indication that she is willing to compromise on the information sought by the subpoenas. Based on the foregoing, the Court has reviewed the documents related to this motion and will not decide the motion on the merits at this time. The Court orders the parties to meet and confer directly, not by email or letter. Additionally, the parties are ordered to file a joint statement of remaining issues by a date to be set by the Court. The joint statement should briefly describe the matters in dispute, followed by Plaintiffs arguments, then Defendants arguments. ORDER 1. The parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer. 2. The parties shall submit a joint statement of the remaining issues as described above. 3. The dates for the status report and continued hearings will be set at the hearing on this motion. 4. Moving party to provide notice.

Ruling

Burgess vs. Rowe

Aug 13, 2024 |22CV-0200531

BURGESS VS. ROWECase Number: 22CV-0200531This matter is on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. Plaintiff has sumbitted a declaration related to thestatus of the case. Defendant has submitted a Status Conference Report. Both documents show that this matteris not yet ready to be set for trial. In light of the foregoing, this matter is continued to Friday, November 1 ,2024at 1:30 p.m. on the Butte Exchange (typically heard in Department 63). No appearance is necessary ontoday’s calendar.

Ruling

RYAN CAIN NEWELL, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Aug 12, 2024 |21STCV43732

Case Number: 21STCV43732 Hearing Date: August 12, 2024 Dept: 32 PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that partys intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 32 HEARING DATE August 12, 2024 CASE NUMBER 21STCV43732 MOTION Motion to Continue Trial and All Associated Discovery Deadlines MOVING PARTIES Defendant GSSI, Inc. OPPOSING PARTY None MOTION Defendant GSSI, Inc. (Defendant) moves to continue trial and all discovery deadlines to December 16, 2024. No opposition has been filed. BACKGROUND This case involves an alleged stabbing at a grocery store. The complaint was filed November 30, 2021. Trial was initially set for May 30, 2023. On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint substituting Defendant as Doe 1. Defendants answer was filed September 20, 2022. On February 9, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to December 28, 2023. On September 27, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to April 18, 2024. On January 4, 2024, Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc. filed a summary judgment/adjudication motion. On February 3, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to September 3, 2024. On July 3, 2024, the Court granted The Vons Companies, Inc.s motion for summary adjudication as to the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention cause of action, but denied as to the negligence cause of action. (Min. Order, 7/3/24.) Based on the September 3, 2024 trial date, fact discovery is now closed ANALYSIS Legal Standard ¿Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.¿ (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)¿ A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.¿ (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)¿ California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial.¿ To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b).) Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circ*mstances that may indicate good cause include: 1. The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; 2. The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; 3. The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; 4. The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; 5. The addition of a new party if: A. The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or B. The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new partys involvement in the case; 6. A partys excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or 7. A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. 8. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circ*mstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: 1. The proximity of the trial date; 2. Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; 3. The length of the continuance requested; 4. The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; 5. The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; 6. If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; 7. The courts calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; 8. Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; 9. Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; 10. Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and 11. Any other fact or circ*mstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) In determining whether to reopen discovery, the court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)¿¿ Discussion Defendant asserts there has been difficulty locating eyewitnesses to the incident. Plaintiff noticed depositions for Tommy Casey and Ramon Cano who are former Vons employees who witnessed the incident. The parties are still attempting to locate and depose these witnesses. Defendant asserts that depositions have been taken of Plaintiff, Defendants person most knowledgeable, and two Vons persons most knowledgeable. However, no eyewitnesses, such as Alice Garcia (Vons cashier adjacent to incident), Tommy Casey, Ramon Cano, Christine Thompson (Plaintiffs mother), and Eddie Nghiem (responding police officer), have been deposed. Defendant asserts the parties participated in a medication on September 14, 2023, and are open to completing a second mediation. Additionally, Defendant asserts it served written discovery on Plaintiff on May 28, 2024. Plaintiff has requested a few extensions and has not supplied responses yet. An independent medical exam of Plaintiff purportedly was scheduled to take place August 9, 2024, but the examiner report will not be available until August 23, 2024. No expert depositions have taken place. Based on the information provided, it appears the parties, despite diligently conducting discovery, will not be prepared for trial in September. No opposition has been filed regarding either the request to continue or the request to reopen discovery. Defendant also requests the Court order a mandatory settlement conference. Defendant contends that Plaintiff will not agree to a half-day remote mediation unless his precondition is met (however, Defendant does not describe what the precondition is, or why it is unreasonable). The Court cannot refer the parties to the Resolve Law LA program in a multi-defendant case, and without all parties agreement. CONCLUSION AND ORDER The Court GRANTS Defendants motion to continue trial and all associated discovery dates. The Final Status Conference is continued to November 26, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Trial is continued to December 10, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. All discovery and motion deadlines shall be in accordance with the new trial date.¿ Defendant shall give notice of this order, and file a proof of service of such.

Ruling

Woodward vs. Feltsen, et al.

Aug 16, 2024 |23CV-0202971

WOODWARD VS. FELTSEN, ET AL.Case Number: 23CV-0202971This matter is on calendar for review regarding status and trial setting. At the last hearing, the Court orderedPlaintiff’s counsel to provide notice of today’s hearing date. No proof of service of notice of hearing for today’sdate is on file. If both parties appear today the Court will proceed with discussing status and trial setting.However, if Defendant fails to appear the Court will have to reset this matter and again order Plaintiff to providenotice.

Ruling

Diana Renteria vs Adan Velasco

Aug 13, 2024 |22CECG03644

Re: Renteria v. Velasco Superior Court Case No. 22CECG03644Hearing Date: August 13, 2024 (Dept. 403)Motion: Two Petitions to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim of MinorTentative Ruling: To grant. Orders signed. No appearances necessary. The court sets a status conference on Thursday, November 14, 2024, at 3:30 p.m.in Department 403 for confirmation of deposit of the minor’s funds into a blockedaccount. If Petitioner files the Acknowledgment of Receipt of Order and Funds for Depositin Blocked Account (MC-356) at least five court days before the hearing, the statusconference will come off calendar. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: JS on 8/12/2024 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)

Ruling

GRACIAN vs AGUILAR

Aug 12, 2024 |CVSW2400656

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED ASCVSW2400656 GRACIAN VS AGUILARCOUNSEL FOR ADELA MEDINA RUIZTentative Ruling:The Motion is GRANTED. Counsel will be relieved once this order is served and proof ofservice of same is returned to the court.

Ruling

LEVELIT INSTALLATIONS GROUP INC vs SOLIS, RICHARD a)

Aug 12, 2024 |CV-21-002479

CV-21-002479 – LEVELIT INSTALLATIONS GROUP INC vs SOLIS, RICHARD – a) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion; b) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication – GRANTED, unopposed; c) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.a) The Court requires further time to review the pleadings. Due to the impending trial date and the Court’s calendar, this matter is therefore continued to August 15, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 24.b) The Court finds that (1) there is an overriding interest supporting sealing records; (2) there is substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent sealing; (3) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and (4) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest.  (McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, rehearing denied, review filed).Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Portions of their pleadings and filings in respect of their Motion for Summary Adjudication is hereby granted. (. (CA ST TR COURT Rule 2.551; In re Marriage of Tamir (2021) 75 Cal. App.5th 48; H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879).Only the requested records shall be sealed in addition to the sealed records. No other any other records relating to this case are to be sealed.No person other than the court is authorized to inspect the sealed record. (CA ST TR COURT Rule 2.551(e)(3) and (4)).c) The Court requires further time to review the pleadings in Plaintiff’s related Motion for Summary Adjudication. Due to the impending trial date and the Court’s calendar, this matter is therefore continued to August 15, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

Document

John Marzan v. Saibo B. Ceesay, American United Transportation Inc.,

Aug 02, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |715835/2024

Document

Lorraine Melo v. Apple Intercom And Electronics Inc., Gendri Manuel Minchala Buri

Jul 25, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |715383/2024

Document

K.J.G., An Infant By His Mother And Natural Guardian, Veronica Santiago And Veronica Santiago, Individually, v. New York City Housing Authority, Ocean Bay Rad Llc, Bayside Land Lease Corp., Nycha Rad I Housing Development Fund Corporation

Aug 16, 2024 |Torts - Other Negligence (Premises - Municipality) |Torts - Other Negligence (Premises - Municipality) |716910/2024

Document

Sonya Borukhova v. Thomas G. Zeichman, As The Personal Representative Of The Estate Of George Camarinos

Aug 14, 2024 |Torts - Other Negligence (Premises Liability) |Torts - Other Negligence (Premises Liability) |716762/2024

Document

Jennifer Jin Ruan v. Union National Transport Llc, Rausten Milget, Samson Yau-Born Fung

Aug 15, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |716891/2024

Document

Lorraine Melo v. Apple Intercom And Electronics Inc., Gendri Manuel Minchala Buri

Jul 25, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |715383/2024

Document

Randolph E. Garcia v. Debra A. Champion

Aug 14, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |716750/2024

Document

Kemraj Balmakund v. John J. Basani, Patricia E. Basani

Jul 25, 2024 |Torts - Other (Premises) |Torts - Other (Premises) |715293/2024