EXHIBIT(S) - 11 (Motion #1) *Corrected* x8132 Paul Checking Possible SSN Administratively Redacted Redacted per 22 NYCRR - x8132 Paul Checking Possible SSN Administratively Redacted October 22, 2018 (2024)

Case

Jul 19, 2024 |Torts - Other Negligence (Premises) |Torts - Other Negligence (Premises) |65826/2024

Case

Estate Of Noe Cortes Duran aka NOE CORTEZ DURAN, Helidat Tapia Cortez as Administratrix v. Jerry B. Barrios, Fransisco Hernandez aka FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ

Jul 16, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |65602/2024

Case

Elizabeth Rigsbee v. Ra 560 White Plains Road Owner Llc

Jul 15, 2024 |Torts - Other (Premises) |Torts - Other (Premises) |65459/2024

Case

Margarita Martinez v. Edison O Chimbo, Scott A Halfmann, Supercool Co Rhvac, Dominick Perna

Jul 15, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |65515/2024

Case

Candi Lue v. Kayla Shirley, Elrac, Llc, Gemmalyn Ferrera Seidel

Jul 15, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |65486/2024

Case

Shinice Hemmings v. Jitender Singh, Raiser-Ny, Llc, Uber Technologies, Inc., Jack Mendez, Jhovanny Mendez

Jul 17, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |65645/2024

Case

Maria Fred v. Dorothy Ross

Jul 18, 2024 |Torts - Other (Harassment) |Torts - Other (Harassment) |50416/2024

Case

Juan Carlos Lara-Silva v. Sila Services, Llc., Abraham A. Hamad

Jul 16, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |65586/2024

Case

Charlene Humphreys v. Samuel Lavar Rivers, Thomas Katamba Dyer Sr.

Jul 15, 2024 |Torts - Other (DEFAMATION) |Torts - Other (DEFAMATION) |50411/2024

Ruling

OCHOA GOMEZ vs NG, et al.

Jul 16, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |24CV057833

24CV057833: OCHOA GOMEZ vs NG, et al.07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6) in Department 16Tentative Ruling - 07/12/2024 Somnath Raj ChatterjeeThe Court lacks sufficient information to evaluate whether Leonilo Pingul's the settlement withthe plaintiff for $50,000 qualifies as a Code of Civil Procedures sections 877.6 good faithsettlement under Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 488. TheCourt lacks information regarding even a rough estimate of the plaintiff's total damages andPingul's proportional liability. The Court lacks basis to make a "ballpark" finding. Nor does ithave information whether Pingul has assets to satisfy a judgment beyond the policy limits.The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE HEARING/CONFERENCE WILL BE IN-PERSONWITH THE OPTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY. COUNSEL AND PARTIES MAY APPEAREITHER IN-PERSON IN DEPARTMENT 16 AT THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ORBY REMOTELY THROUGH THE ZOOM PLATFORM. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATIONFOR DEPARTMENT 16 IS BELOW.Join ZoomGov Meetinghttps://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16024053017Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017One tap mobile+16692545252,,16024053017# US (San Jose)+16692161590,,16024053017# US (San Jose)---Dial by your location• +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)• +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose)• +1 415 449 4000 US (US Spanish Line)• +1 646 828 7666 US (New York)• +1 646 964 1167 US (US Spanish Line)• +1 551 285 1373 US (New Jersey)• 833 568 8864 US Toll-freeMeeting ID: 160 2405 3017Find your local number: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/u/afHtSjITt---Join by SIP• 16024053017@sip.zoomgov.com---Join by H.323 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV057833: OCHOA GOMEZ vs NG, et al. 07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6) in Department 16• 161.199.138.10 (US West)• 161.199.136.10 (US East)Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017

Ruling

ASCOT UNDERWRITING LTD. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Jul 19, 2024 |24NNCV01072

Case Number: 24NNCV01072 Hearing Date: July 19, 2024 Dept: NCB Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles North Central District Department B ascot underwriting ltd., Plaintiffs, v. united aeronautical corporation, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 24NNCV01072 Hearing Date: July 19, 2024 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to be relieved as counsel Defense counsel, William D. Koehler, Esq. (Counsel), moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Norton Sales, Inc. (Defendant). Counsel filed this instant motion to be relieved as counsel on June 13, 2024. Counsel has filed the requisite forms pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362. According to the declaration of Counsel, Counsel seeks to be relieved as counsel because Carlos Guzman, President of Norton Sales, Inc., requested that Counsel filed this motion and Mr. Guzman has consented to Counsel being relieved as counsel of record. (MC-052, §2.) Mr. Guzman also provides his declaration stating that there are 3 pending actions stemming from a wrongful death lawsuit to which his company had minimal involvement and his company can no longer afford the financial burden or retaining Counsel. (Guzman Decl., ¶¶2-3.) He states his understanding that a corporation cannot represent itself. (Id., ¶4.) For these reasons, Counsel seeks to withdraw from representing Defendant in this action. Counsel properly served Defendant at its last known mailing address, which was confirmed by telephone and conversation within the past 30 days of filing the motion. As for future hearing dates, the Case Management Conference is set for September 11, 2024. Thus, there is sufficient time for Defendant to obtain substitute counsel. Accordingly, the motion to be relieved as counsel is granted. The order electronically lodged by Counsel will be signed at the hearing. The order will become effective upon the filing of a proof of service of a signed copy of the order on Defendant. In addition, as Defendant Norton Sales, Inc. is a corporate entity, it cannot represent itself in propria persona. (See Rogers v. Municipal Court (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1314, 1318.) The Court notes that there are two other motions to be relieved as counsel filed by Counsel in Case Nos. 22STCV31797 and 23BBCV02210. The Court has set Orders to Show Cause re Status of Representation of Defendant Norton Sales, Inc. for September 12, 2024 in those cases. For consistency purposes, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause re Status of Representation of Defendant Norton Sales, Inc. for September 12, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in this case as well. Notice to be provided by Counsel. DATED: July 19, 2024 ___________________________ John J. Kralik Judge of the Superior Court

Ruling

M. vs GONGCO FOODS

Jul 15, 2024 |CVRI2304396

MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT ON2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOROTHER PERSONALCVRI2304396 M. VS GONGCO FOODS INJURY/PROPERTYDAMAGE/WRONGFUL DEATH TORT(OVER $25,000) OF X. M. BY THEPEGGS COMPANY, INC.Tentative Ruling:The Motion is denied. The Second Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges the ultimate factssupporting a claim for punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294.

Ruling

C. R., ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Jul 16, 2024 |20STCV25026

Case Number: 20STCV25026 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 48 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT C. R., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 20STCV25026 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PETITION TO APPROVE MINORS COMPROMISE Dept. 48 8:30 a.m. July 16, 2024 Claimant C.R., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, L Mayra N. Rodriguez, has agreed to settle his claims against Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District, Luis Rodriguez-Cazares, and Karen Fattal in exchange for $139,500.00. Of this amount, $726.47 is allocated for a Medi-Cal lien, $55,800.00 is allocated for attorney fees, and $27,351.68 is allocated for costs and expenses, leaving a balance of $55,621.90 for Claimant. If approved, the funds will be deposited into a blocked account, subject to withdrawal only upon authorization of the court. Court approval is required for all settlements of a minors claim. (Prob. Code, §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) The Court has reviewed the proposed settlement and cannot find that it is fair and reasonable at this time. Although Claimants guardian agreed to pay up to 45% of any settlement as attorney fees and all costs and expenses (Petition, Ex. 17(a)), the $55,800.00 in attorney fees and $27,351.68 in costs and expenses are a combined 59.6% of the total settlement amount. After all expenses, Claimant will receive only about 39.8% of the total settlement amount. At the hearing, counsel should be prepared to more thoroughly address the factors of California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(b) to justify such a high amount of attorney fees and expenses. Otherwise, the Court is inclined to deny the petition without prejudice. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar. Dated this 16th day of July 2024 Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court

Ruling

MANNERS vs CITY OF FREMONT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, et al.

Jul 16, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |22CV021879

22CV021879: MANNERS vs CITY OF FREMONT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6) in Department 512a defaulted and unrepresented corporate party (“Lagorio”) or the unnamed and non-appearingDoes Nos. 1-2 ( See CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141,1145 [“A corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record inpropria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employeewho is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courtsof record”]).The Court finds that Norcal’s renewed Motion still does not adequately address any of theseissues. Norcal claims in the Moving MPA that Plaintiff has a medical lien in the amount of$2,635.76 for treatment of her alleged injuries but presents no evidence that this amount is thesole amount of Plaintiff’s out-of-pocket damages and does not address what, if any, otherdamages Plaintiff is claiming. Norcal does not present any evidence that it requested or receiveda CCP § 425.11 Statement of Damages or received verified discovery responses itemizing orsetting forth Plaintiffs’ total alleged damages.Second, Norcal has still not adequately addressed City’s cross-claims for indemnity againstNorcal and Lagorio. The City cites to Municipal Code §§ 12.30.010, 12.30.200 and 12.30.210.The Court’s reading of these Muni. Code provisions appear to make property owners solelyresponsible for maintenance and repair of trees on adjacent public property (i.e., “street trees”),landscaping on or abutting public streets, and sidewalks in front of the owner’s lot. These codeprovisions expressly state that landowners have a duty to members of the public to maintainthese elements in a “safe and nondangerous condition,” makes landowners liable to members ofthe public for failure to perform these duties resulting in injury, and requires landowners toindemnify the City from claims arising out of the landowners’ failure to perform these duties.With respect to adjacent sidewalks, the landowner’s duties include “performance of grinding,removal and replacement of sidewalks, and repair and maintenance of curbs and gutters.” (§12.30.210(b).)Norcal asserts that both before and after Plaintiff’s injury, the City performed sidewalk“maintenance/grinding” in the area of Plaintiff’s injury. However, the only evidence presented isthe conclusory Mendoza Declaration at ¶¶ 13-15, which contains no foundation for thedeclarant’s purported personal knowledge of the declared facts.Similarly, although the above-referenced Muni. Code provisions appear to require the landownerto completely indemnify the City for injuries of the type alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint (aslip/trip and fall caused by “a non-obvious protuberance in the sidewalk ... due to unevenconcrete slabs ... further obscured by fallen leaves and other debris from the surroundingvegetation”), Norcal asserts that it is “unlikely to be held 100% liable in this action” withoutcitation to admissible evidence or legal authority for this assertion. Mendoza Dec. ¶ 37constitutes improper legal argument unsupported by citation to legal authority, rather thanadmissible evidence. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV021879: MANNERS vs CITY OF FREMONT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6) in Department 512Finally, Norcal’s current motion does not address its ability to seek a good faith settlementdetermination as to a defaulted corporate defendant who has not appeared in the action and Doeswho at present have not been named and have not appeared in the action. In Reply, Norcal’scounsel asserts that they are representing Lagorio. However, it appears likely that Lagorio wouldfirst need to move to set aside the default for the limited purpose of seeking a good faithsettlement determination in its favor. Similarly, it is likely that the Does would need to appear inthis action for the limited purpose of seeking a good faith settlement determination.Wherefore, the Court DENIES Norcal’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGSPLEASE NOTE: If any party contests the tentative ruling, the hearing on the motion will occurremotely via the court’s own video-conferencing system.Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will becomethe order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding thenoticed hearing date.To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:First, the party must notify Department 512, by email at Dept512@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:Join the meeting using the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16057661931Join the meeting by Phone:Meeting ID: 160 5766 19311 669 254 5252, 16057661931# US (San Jose)1 669 216 1590, 16057661931# US (San Jose)833 568 8864 US Toll-free SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA22CV021879: MANNERS vs CITY OF FREMONT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, et al.07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6) in Department 512

Ruling

Robert Libera vs. Lorraine Libera

Jul 23, 2024 |C23-02058

C23-02058 ROBERT LIBERA VS. LORRAINE LIBERA9:00 AM HEARING IN RE: FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE --see also line #12-- Need: 1. Appearances 2. Status Reports Notes: Answer filed 06/06/24 by Lorraine Libera2A. MSP20-00624 MATTER OF THE YOUNG REVOCABLE TRUST9:00 AM HEARING ON PETITION IN RE: PETITION FOR ORDERS DETERMINING FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE, THAT GREGORY YOUNG HAS VIOLATED THE TRUST'S NO-CONTEST CLAUSE, COMPELLING RETURN OF ASSETS, DISINHERITANCE FILED ON 07/11/23 BY MICHAEL F. FRAME AND BONNIE MAY KING Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proof of service in the manner provided in CCP § 415.10 (30 days personal service) or CCP § 415.30 (30 days proof of mailing with Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt) on each person claiming an interest in, or having title to or possession of, the property. PrC § 851(a)(2) 3. Proposed Order Note: Request for Dismissal (Partial) entered 2-7-2024 as to claims for financial elder abuse. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PR - MARTINEZ-WAKEFIELD TAYLOR COURTHOUSE COURT CALENDAR FOR JULY 23, 2024 DEPARTMENT 30 JUDICIAL OFFICER: VIRGINIA M GEORGE2B. MSP20-00624 MATTER OF THE YOUNG REVOCABLE TRUST9:00 AM HEARING ON PETITION IN RE: FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO PRESERVE TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY PENDING RESOLUTION OF TRUST CONTEST FILED 10/25/22 BY GREG YOUNG Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proposed Order Note: Order Granting Ex Parte Application to Preserve Tangible Personal Property Pending Decision on Petition filed 10-6-2022.2C. MSP20-00624 MATTER OF THE YOUNG REVOCABLE TRUST9:00 AM HEARING ON PETITION IN RE: TO INVALIDATE THE RESTATEMENTS OF THE SURVIVOR'S TRUST BASED ON FRAUD FILED 11/09/22 BY GREGORY YOUNG Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proposed Order SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PR - MARTINEZ-WAKEFIELD TAYLOR COURTHOUSE COURT CALENDAR FOR JULY 23, 2024 DEPARTMENT 30 JUDICIAL OFFICER: VIRGINIA M GEORGE2D. MSP20-00624 MATTER OF THE YOUNG REVOCABLE TRUST9:00 AM HEARING ON PETITION IN RE: TO INVALIDATE THE RESTATEMENTS OF THE SURVIVOR'S TRUST BASED ON FRAUD FILED 11/09/22 BY GREGORY YOUNG Drop, calendared in duplicate. See line 2C.2E. MSP20-00624 MATTER OF THE YOUNG REVOCABLE TRUST9:00 AM HEARING IN RE: MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL FILED 02/08/24 BY GREGORY YOUNG Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proposed Order Notes: a) Stipulation submitted and Order signed 04/03/24 continuing this hearing to 05/24/24, but, the submitting party never picked up and filed the documents. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PR - MARTINEZ-WAKEFIELD TAYLOR COURTHOUSE COURT CALENDAR FOR JULY 23, 2024 DEPARTMENT 30 JUDICIAL OFFICER: VIRGINIA M GEORGE2F. MSP20-00624 MATTER OF THE YOUNG REVOCABLE TRUST9:00 AM HEARING ON PETITION IN RE: TO REMOVE CO-TRUSTEES AND APPOINT SUCCESSOR FILED 02/21/24 BY GREGORY YOUNG Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proposed Order Note: Stipulation submitted and Order signed 04/03/24 continuing this hearing to 05/24/24, but, the submitting party never picked up and filed the documents.

Ruling

PRECIOUS WARE VS VIKEN OUZOUNIAN, ET AL.

Jul 18, 2024 |22STCV25510

Case Number: 22STCV25510 Hearing Date: July 18, 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 July 18, 2024 CASE NUMBER 22STCV25510 MOTION Motion to Continue Trial MOVING PARTIES Cross-Defendant Berry Bowl Los Angeles, LLC OPPOSING PARTY None MOTION Cross-Defendant Berry Bowl Los Angeles, LLC (Cross-Defendant) moves to continue trial and all related dates. No opposition has been filed. BACKGROUND This case involves injuries from a sliding gate that occurred on July 28, 2022. The complaint was filed on August 8, 2022. Trial was initially set for February 5, 2024. Defendants Viken Ouzounian, Raquel Ouzounian, VRCC York, LLC, VRCC Lincoln, LLC, Dons Auto repair & RV Center, and Dons Auto Repair & RV Center (Defendants) filed an answer on November 3, 2022. On January 11, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial to August 5, 2024, and granted leave to Defendants to file a cross complaint. On February 13, 2024, Defendants filed a cross-complaint for equitable indemnification, apportionment of fault, and express indemnity against Berry Bowl and Roes 1 to 25. On May 14, 2024, Cross-Defendant (sued erroneously as Berry Bowl), filed an answer to the cross complaint. 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).) Discussion Here, Cross-Defendant seeks to continue trial and all related dates to May 22, 2025. Cross-Defendant argues the continuance is needed because it entered this case on May 14, 2024, and thus requires more time to conduct discovery. Additionally, it contends that Plaintiff is still treating injuries and that all parties have stipulated to the continuance. Cross-Defendant estimates that it will need 40 to 60 days to conduct written discovery and 3 to 5 months to receive Plaintiffs subpoenaed medical records. (Shaw Decl. ¶ 6.) As a result, Cross-Defendant requests 7 to 9 months to prepare a defense. However, Cross-Defendant does not explain its diligence in conducting discovery since May 2024, nor does it describe with specificity the outstanding discovery. Accordingly, Cross-Defendant does not justify the need for a lengthy continuance. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part Cross-Defendants motion to continue trial. The Final Status Conference is continued to January 16, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Trial is continued to January 30, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. All discovery and motion deadlines are associated with the new trial date. Cross-Defendant shall give notice of this order, and file a proof of service of such.

Ruling

Nolan vs. Best Western International, Inc.

Jul 15, 2024 |22CV-0199470

NOLAN VS. BEST WESTERN INTERNATIONAL, INC.Case Number: 22CV-0199470Tentative Ruling on Petition to Approve Minor Compromise: This matter is on calendar forfurther proceedings on a Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim for Minor Cordelia Nolan.The Petition was filed January 31, 2024, by Guardian Ad Litem/Father Ivan Case. The Court hassince been informed that a replacement Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) must be appointed due to theunavailability of the current GAL.In the late afternoon of July 12, 2024, the Court received extensive pleadings, filed on July 12,2024, which include an Amended Petion and Status Report. The Court has obviously not had timeto review any of this material. This matter, and the 9:00 Review Hearing are continued to August12, 2024 at 8:30 a.m and 9:00 a.m., respectively, in in Dept. 64. Petitioner is to serve notice ofthese continued hearings and file a proof of service of having done so no later than five days priorto the continued date.No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Document

Sarah Davis v. Courtney Bellew, Tmothy Bellew

Feb 15, 2012 |Gretchen Walsh |Torts - Other (Dog bite) |Torts - Other (Dog bite) |55500/2023

Document

Sarah Davis v. Courtney Bellew, Tmothy Bellew

Feb 15, 2012 |Gretchen Walsh |Torts - Other (Dog bite) |Torts - Other (Dog bite) |55500/2023

Document

Paul Mueller -Administrator of the Estate of Ann Mueller, deceased v. Joshua A. Greenwald M.D., Cosmetic Surgery Associates Of New York Pllc

Jan 13, 2023 |Lewis Jay Lubell |Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |55511/2023

Document

Hugh Hammill v. The Salesians Of Don Bosco A/K/A The Salesian Society

Mar 09, 2020 |Doris Gonzalez |Torts - Child Victims Act |Torts - Child Victims Act |54039/2020

Document

Sarah Davis v. Courtney Bellew, Tmothy Bellew

Feb 15, 2012 |Gretchen Walsh |Torts - Other (Dog bite) |Torts - Other (Dog bite) |55500/2023

Document

Robert Matthews v. Yu Wei

Jul 12, 2024 |Torts - Other (Defamation) |Torts - Other (Defamation) |50408/2024

Document

Sarah Davis v. Courtney Bellew, Tmothy Bellew

Feb 15, 2012 |Gretchen Walsh |Torts - Other (Dog bite) |Torts - Other (Dog bite) |55500/2023

Document

Consuelo Rincon v. Westchester County Health Care Corp.

Jul 18, 2024 |Lewis Jay Lubell |Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |65704/2024