Related Contentin San Francisco County
Case
LVNV FUNDING LLC VS. DINA DIAMOND ET AL
Aug 16, 2024 |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |CGC24617286
Case
PLAZA SERVICES, LLC VS. RODOLFO CERNA
Aug 16, 2024 |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |CGC24617295
Case
OPORTUN, INC VS. BRIAN GABRIEL HILARIO DE JESUS
Aug 12, 2024 |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |CGC24617181
Case
SYNCHRONY BANK VS. LAURA ROGERS ET AL
Aug 15, 2024 |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |CGC24617248
Case
AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS. ANTONY BRETTKELLY ET AL
Aug 13, 2024 |Anne-Christine Massullo |COMMON COUNTS/OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT/COLLECTIONS |COMMON COUNTS/OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT/COLLECTIONS |CGC24617175
Case
AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS. MICHAEL EDISON
Aug 13, 2024 |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |CGC24617200
Case
OPORTUN, INC VS. VICTOR MANUEL REYES MEZA
Aug 12, 2024 |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |CGC24617166
Case
Aug 12, 2024 |SISTER STATE JUDGMENT |SISTER STATE JUDGMENT |CPF24518660
Case
CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, AS ASSIGNEE OF CITIBANK, N.A. VS. MICHAEL CORDOVA ET AL
Aug 13, 2024 |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |CGC24617186
Ruling
VICTORIA BRIGNON, AN INDIVIDUAL VS. JOHN FRANCIS MURPHY, AN INDIVIDUAL ET AL
Aug 16, 2024 |CGC22599878
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Friday, August 16, 2024, Line 11. DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO's Motion Opposing Determination Of Good Faith Settlement. Defendants CCSF and John Murphy's motion contesting the Omara settlement is granted. (The Court's complete tentative ruling has been emailed to the parties.) Friday's Law & Motion Calendar will be called out of Dept. 301. Anyone intending to appear in person should report to Dept. 301. However, anyone intending to appear remotely should use the regular Zoom information for Dept. 302's Law & Motion Calendar for 9:30 a.m. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RCE)
Ruling
VINCENT SEDDO ET AL VS. CARRIER CORPORATION ET AL
Aug 13, 2024 |CGC23277149
On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, August 13, 2024, in Department 301, Line 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Order Substituting Anthony Seddo as Successor-in-Interest to, and Substituting Successor-in-Interest for Deceased Plaintiff; And For Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. (C.C.P. Sections 377.20, 377.31, 377.11, 377.32, 377.60, and 473.) No opposition filed. Plaintiff shall file and serve the First Amended Complaint forthwith. The First Amended Complaint is deemed served on all Defendants who have previously appeared in the action. The prevailing party shall lodge with the clerk in Department 301 by the time set for this hearing a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must email contestasbestostr@sftc.org by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing and state their intention to contest. If a hearing is requested, it will be on August 13, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. Attorneys may appear in person or remotely. Face coverings are optional. Remote appearances must be arranged through CourtCall (1-888-88-COURT). No prior notice or permission is required. If a party wishes to have the matter reported, the parties must meet and confer to agree on only one court reporter, who must be licensed under Bus. & Prof. Code, sec. 8016. There will be only one official record. If the parties cannot agree, the Court will designate a qualified court reporter to provide the official transcript for the matter, and the party or parties will bear the cost. = (301/RCE)
Ruling
FDI-22-797213
Aug 15, 2024 |FDI-22-797213
2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT45 )6 ELISE WOOD, ) Case Number: FDI-22-797213 )7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: August 15, 2024 )8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM )9 GUINNEVERE MARGARET RAY, ) Department: 404 )10 Respondent ) Presiding: ANNE COSTIN )11 )12 REQUEST FOR ORDER SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT, ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS13 TENTATIVE RULING14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the15 Court makes the following findings and orders:16 A. Procedural History17 1) On for hearing is Respondent (Guinnevere Margaret Ray)’s Request for Order filed 9/13/202318 asking the Court to award her temporary spousal support and $10,525 in need-based attorney’s fees and19 costs.20 2) On 2/22/2024, Petitioner (Elise Wood) filed a Responsive Declaration asking the Court to deny21 all of Respondent’s requests.22 3) At the prior 5/23/2024 hearing, the Court denied Respondent’s request for temporary spousal23 support but reserved jurisdiction over the issue of permanent spousal support. The Court also continued24 the hearing on Respondent’s request for need-based attorney’s fees and costs to 8/15/2024 because25 Respondent’s Income and Expense Declaration was out of date. The parties were ordered to meet and26 confer on the issue of attorney’s fees and to file and serve updated Income and Expense Declarations.27 4) On 7/31/2024, Petitioner filed an updated Income and Expense Declaration. Petitioner states that28 she currently earns $20,409 in gross per month and her monthly expenses total $11,199 per month29 (including $4,000 per month in savings and investments and $1,000 per month in charitable1 contributions). Petitioner reports having $0 in liquid assets and negative $34,770.73 in all other property.2 Petitioner reports owing $26,916 to the IRS. Petitioner states that she has paid her attorney $10,000 to3 date using her income and she states she currently owes her attorney $0.4 5) On 8/2/2024, Respondent filed an updated Income and Expense Declaration. Respondent states5 she was laid off on 5/1/2024 and received a 3 month severance in the amount of $28,846.19. Petitioner6 states that her monthly expenses total $5,829. Respondent reports having $3,900 in liquid assets and7 negative $20,000 in other assets. Respondent states that she owes $22,875 in total debt, including credit8 card debt, a consolidation loan, and an auto loan (with a $4,213 balance). Petitioner states she has paid her9 attorney $7,509 to date using a loan from a friend and states she currently owes her attorney $114.73.10 6) The Court notes that per the Petition for Dissolution filed 11/1/2022 and the Response and11 Request for Dissolution filed 1/31/2023 the parties agree that they married on 7/27/2016 and separated on12 9/30/2020, for a marriage of 4 years and 2 months.13 B. Findings and Orders14 1) Under Family Code section 2030, the Court finds that there is a significant disparity in access to15 funds to pay legal fees and that Petitioner has the ability to pay the amount requested by Respondent for16 legal fees. The Court finds that the amount requested by Respondent is just, reasonable, and necessary.17 Petitioner shall pay to Respondent $10,525 for attorney’s fees in two installments, the first installment of18 $5,000 is due by 9/15/2024; the second installment of $5,525 is due by 10/15/2024.19 2) Respondent’s attorney shall prepare the order. Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the20 court to prepare the order after hearing – within 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve21 the proposed order to the other party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA22 Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested,23 submit the proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to submit the order after hearing24 within 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in25 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d).262728291
Ruling
FPT-24-378354
Aug 15, 2024 |FPT-24-378354
2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT45 )6 GINALE BARBARA MADELINA HARRIS, ) Case Number: FPT-24-378354 )7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: August 15, 2024 )8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM )9 LEROY JOHNSON WILLIAMS, ) Department: 403 )10 Respondent ) Presiding: RUSSELL S. ROECA )11 )12 REQUEST FOR ORDER OTHER SEE ITEM 8, PAGE 413 TENTATIVE RULING14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the15 Court makes the following findings and orders:16 This matter was continued from 5/16/2024, for Petitioner to file a death certificate for Leroy17 Johnson and a Responsive Declaration from Harold LeRoy Williams stating he is her biological Father18 and agrees with her requests in the 3/6/2024 RFO.19 Petitioner’s RFO is denied. Petitioner failed to file a declaration from Harold LeRoy Williams, as20 ordered on 5/16/2024.2122232425262728291
Ruling
NAVID SARRAFZADEH VS. DM 2465 VAN NESS HOLDINGS MEMBER LLC, A LIMITED ET AL
Aug 16, 2024 |CGC24614342
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Friday, August 16, 2024, Line 7. DEFENDANT DM 2465 VAN NESS HOLDINGS MEMBER LLC's Motion To Compel Arbitration And Stay Proceedings. Continued to August 22, 2024 to be heard by Judge Ulmer. =(302/RCE)
Ruling
**TRANSFERRED TO SAN MATEO COUNTY** AMERICAN BAY AREA FUND MANAGMENT LLC, A CALIFORNIA VS. ANDERS FUNG ET AL
Aug 14, 2024 |CGC24612216
Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Wednesday, August 14, 2024, Line 10. PLAINTIFF AMERICAN BAY AREA FUND MANAGMENT LLC's Motion To Compel Defendant Paramount Estate Llcs Further Responses To Requests For Production Of Documents. Off calendar. Case transferred to San Mateo County. (302/CK)
Ruling
NORMA CONTRERAS ET AL VS. CEMEX TRUCKING, INC. ET AL
Aug 16, 2024 |CGC22599698
Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Friday, Aug-16-2024, Line 3, 3-DEFENDANT CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PACIFIC, LLC ERRONEOUSLY SUED HEREIN AS CEMEX TRUCKING, INC. AND CEMEX, INC. Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel The Deposition Of Plaintiff Jadon Baldizon And Document Production, And For Monetary Sanctions. Pro Tem Judge Philip Ward, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: See ruling on companion "Motion And Motion To Compel The Deposition Of Plaintiff Medardo Ulloa And Document Production, And For Monetary Sanctions; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities." For the 9:00 a.m. Discovery calendar, all attorneys and parties who stipulate to the Judge Pro Tem and submit to the tentative ruling, hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link (DISCOVERY, DEPARTMENT 525 DAILY AT 9:00 A.M.), or dial the corresponding number and use the meeting ID, and password for Discovery Department 525. **** FOR ALL PARTIES THAT CONTEST THE TENTATIVE RULING OR DO NOT STIPULATE TO THE JUDGE PRO TEM, A PERSONAL APPEARANCE IS REQUIRED. **** Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to psw@hassard.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must e-mail it to the Judge Pro Tem. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(525/JPT)
Ruling
FDI-23-797993
Aug 13, 2024 |FDI-23-797993
2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT45 )6 AMIT RINDHE, ) Case Number: FDI-23-797993 )7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: August 13, 2024 )8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM )9 ISHA SINGH, ) Department: 404 )10 Respondent ) Presiding: ANNE COSTIN )11 )12 REQUEST FOR ORDER ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS, SEE ITEM 8 AND SANCTIONS13 TENTATIVE RULING14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the15 Court makes the following findings and orders:16 A. Procedural History17 1. On 7/25/2024, Petitioner (Amit Rindhe) filed a Second Amended Petition asking the Court to18 nullify his marriage to Respondent (Isha Singh).19 2. This was filed pursuant to the Court’s 7/25/2024 order permitting Petitioner to file a second20 amended Petition to request a nullity.21 3. On 7/25/2024, the Court also set a one-afternoon long-cause hearing for 11/5/2024 at 1:45 PM in22 Dept. 404 on the issues of (a) whether the parties’ marriage is valid, void, or voidable under Family Code23 sections 2201 and 2210(b) and (b) whether Respondent is entitled to putative spouse status, as that term is24 defined by law.25 4. On 8/9/2024, Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition in which she26 reiterates her request for a Dissolution of Marriage and denies the bases supporting Petitioner’s nullity27 request.28 5. The Court notes that both parties state that they were married on 7/7/2022 and separated on29 3/31/2023, for a marriage of 8 months.1 6. On for hearing is Petitioner’s Request for Order filed 5/10/2024 asking the Court to: (a) find that2 all of Respondent’s objections to Petitioner’s Request for Admissions, Set One have been waived, (b)3 order that all matters in Petitioner’s Request for Admissions, Set One be deemed admitted, and (c) award4 Petitioner $3,690 in attorney’s fees and costs sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.0105 and Family Code section 271.6 7. Petitioner’s Requests for Admission, Set One (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to7 Petitioner’s Request for Order) ask Respondent to admit the following categories of information: (a)8 Respondent knows the person known as Sumit Bharti; (b) Respondent was at one point married to Sumit9 Bharti; (c) Respondent’s marriage to Sumit Bharti was never terminated; (d) Respondent filed a domestic10 violence case, a dowry harassment case, and criminal charges against Sumit Bharti in India; and (e)11 Respondent failed to list Sumit Bharti as her spouse on two of Respondent’s previously issued Indian12 passports.13 8. In all of her responses to Petitioner’s Requests for Admission, Set One (a copy of which is14 attached as Exhibit D to Petitioner’s Request for Order), Respondent cites three objections: (a) the15 requests are irrelevant and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;16 (b) the requests are propounded for an improper purpose of harassment, annoyance, and to cause further17 delay; and (c) Respondent declines to provide responses under the 5th Amendment to the United States18 Constitution, which protects her right against self-incrimination.19 9. The requests set forth in Petitioner’s requests are based on the following arguments.20 1. Petitioner argues that because Respondent responded to each request for admission with21 an objection, Respondent did not actually “respond” to Petitioner’s Requests for Admissions.22 2. Petitioner argues that the Court cannot consider Respondent’s objections because the23 objections were not signed by Respondent’s attorney as required under Code of Civil Procedure24 section 2033.240(c).25 3. Petitioner argues that Respondent did not sign under penalty of perjury her response to26 Form Interrogatories – General, request 17 (which asks the responding party to state whether any27 response to each request for admission is an unqualified admission and for each unqualified28 admission, to provide further information).291 10. On 7/11/2024, Respondent filed a Response and Opposition asking the Court to deny all of2 Petitioner’s requests. Respondent’s opposition is based on the following arguments.3 a. Respondent argues she is permitted to respond to Requests for Admission with4 objections.5 b. Respondent argues she is not required to respond to the Requests for Admission as she6 has a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Requests for Admission seek7 information which may lead to criminal charges under California Penal Code sections 281 and8 283.9 c. Respondent’s attorney states that he electronically signed the Responses to Requests for10 Admission and to Form Interrogatories (Respondent points to pages 72 and 68 of Petitioner’s11 Request for Order), as defined under California rules of Court, rule 2.257(a).12 11. On 8/6/2024, Respondent filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities, arguing that she is13 permitted to plead the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination even in instances where she faces14 possible criminal prosecution and no criminal charges have yet been brought.15 12. On 7/29/2024, Petitioner filed a Reply Declaration reiterating her original requests.16 13. On 8/7/2024, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities reiterating17 his earlier arguments.18 B. Findings and Orders19 1. The Court does not find that all of Respondent’s objections to Petitioner’s Request for20 Admission, Set One have been waived on the following bases.21 2. The Court finds that it was not improper for Respondent to respond to each Request for22 Admission with an objection. Such possibility is specifically provided for in Code of Civil Procedure23 section 2033.240(a) (“The party to whom the requests for admission are directed shall sign the response24 under oath, unless the response contains only objections.”). The Court finds that Respondent did in fact25 respond to Petitioner’s Requests for Admissions.26 3. Because Respondent responded with an objection to each and every Request for Admission, only27 Respondent’s attorney was required to sign the objections under Code of Civil Procedure section28 2033.240(a) (cited above) and (c) (“The attorney for the responding party shall sign any response that29 contains an objection.”). The Court further finds that Respondent’s attorney electronically signed the1 Responses to the Requests for Admission and such electronic signature met the requirements of California2 Rules of Court, rule 2.257(a).3 4. The Court also finds that both Respondent’s attorney and Respondent electronically signed her4 Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and those electronic signatures met the requirements of5 California Rules of Court, rule 2.257(a).6 5. The Court does not find that any of the requests set forth in Requests for Admission, Set One,7 were propounded for an improper purpose and the Court overrules this objection.8 6. The Court overrules Respondent’s relevance objection as to Petitioner’s Requests for Admission.9 The Court finds these requests seek relevant information or are reasonably calculated to lead to the10 discovery of admissible evidence in this case.11 7. Petitioner’s request to deem admitted all requests is DENIED.12 8. As to Respondent’s objection based on her right against compelled self-incrimination, the Court13 notes the following relevant law and makes the following findings and orders.14 9. The Court finds that Respondent has the right to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination15 under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Evidence Code section 290, even in a16 civil case such as this one where no criminal charges have yet been brought against the responding party.17 (Gonzales v. Superior Court of Orange County (1980) 117 Cal.App.3d 57 [in civil proceeding brought by18 county to establish paternity and order child support, alleged father could claim Fifth Amendment19 privilege as to questions regarding sex with child's mother and his financial ability to pay as such20 information could be used to prosecute him criminally for failure to provide support under Penal Code21 section 270, even though no charges had yet been brought]).22 10. “[T]he privilege forbids compelled disclosures which could serve as a ‘link in a chain’ of23 evidence tending to establish guilt of a criminal offense” and in ruling upon a claim of privilege “the trial24 court must find that it clearly appears from a consideration of all the circ*mstances in the case that an25 answer to the challenged question cannot possibly have a tendency to incriminate the witness.”26 (Prudhomme v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 320, 326).27 11. The Court is unable to find that compelling Respondent to respond to requests 1(B) – 1(H)28 (seeking information regarding whether Respondent was ever married to Sumit Bharti, whether a divorce29 proceeding was ever commenced, and whether any marriage to Sumit Bharti was ever terminated) and1 2(C) – 2(E) (asking Respondent to authenticate purported photos of Respondent and Sumit Bharti’s2 wedding day and a copy of a register of actions purportedly showing the dismissal of a dissolution case3 between Respondent and Sumit Bharti) “cannot possibly have a tendency to incriminate” Respondent4 under Penal Code sections 281 – 283. As such the Court finds that Respondent’s objections based on 5th5 amendment privilege were permissibly raised and Petitioner’s request for the Court to deem admitted6 requests 1(B) – 1(H) and 2(C) – 2(E) is DENIED.7 12. This order is made without prejudice to Petitioner’s ability to seek this information from sources8 that are not Respondent’s direct testimony (e.g., document requests via direct subpoena to an Indian Court9 or through document requests served on Respondent).10 13. However, the Court does not find that compelling Respondent to respond to request 1(A) (asking11 Respondent to admit she simply knows the person known as Sumit Bharti), 1(P) – 1(S) (asking12 Respondent to admit the expiration dates of prior Indian passports and to admit that she did not list Sumit13 Bharti as her spouse on various passports), and 2(A) – 2(B) (asking Respondent to authenticate photos of14 the inside cover of previously issued Indian passports) could serve as a “link in a chain” of evidence15 tending to establish guilt under Penal Code sections 281 – 283.16 14. No later than 8/20/2024, Respondent shall serve verified responses to requests 1(A), 1(P) – 1(S),17 and 2(A) – 2(B) which meet the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. If Respondent18 does not comply with this order, the Court will consider at the next hearing date (set for 9/12/2024 at 9:0019 AM in Dept. 404) whether to deem these requests admitted.20 15. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court is inclined to consider granting a protective order21 providing use immunity against criminal prosecution under Penal Code sections 281 – 293 under which22 the Court will consider compelling Respondent to respond to requests 1(B) – 1(H) and 2(C) – 2(E). A23 future hearing date is set on this issue on Thursday, 9/12/2024 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 404. The Court would24 like the parties to meet and confer on this issue because (as the parties may or may not be aware), in order25 to grant use immunity, notice must first be provided to the prosecuting authority and the prosecuting26 authority must be given the opportunity to object to the grant of use immunity. The parties shall meet and27 confer on this issue no later than 8/20/2024. If the parties are able to reach an agreement, they shall28 submit a short stipulation to the Court no later than 8/26/2024 confirming as such. If the parties are29 unable to reach an agreement, Petitioner shall file a declaration (not to exceed 5 pages, not including1 exhibits) providing his position on this issue no later than 8/26/2024 and Respondent may file a2 declaration providing her position on this issue no later than 9/2/2024.3 16. Although Petitioner mentioned Petitioner’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One in his4 Request for Order, no request to compel further responses to those Form Interrogatories has been made5 and so the Court will make no orders at this time with respect to Petitioner’s Form Interrogatories –6 General, Set One.7 17. Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees sanctions under Family Code section 271 is denied as the8 Court finds no good cause to award f under that statutes.9 18. The Court will, however, award to Petitioner $2,040 in sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure10 section 2023.010(h) as the Court finds Respondent had no basis not to respond to Request for Admission11 1(A), 1(P) – 1(S), and 2(A) – 2(B). Respondent shall pay this amount to Petitioner no later than12 8/20/2024.13 19. Petitioner’s attorney shall prepare the Order after hearing. Preparation of Order: If you are14 directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 10 calendar days of the hearing you must15 either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set16 forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was17 uncontested, submit the proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to submit the order18 after hearing within 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the19 court in accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d).202122232425262728291
Document
AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS. ANTONY BRETTKELLY ET AL
Aug 13, 2024 |Anne-Christine Massullo |COMMON COUNTS/OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT/COLLECTIONS |COMMON COUNTS/OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT/COLLECTIONS |CGC24617175
Document
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY ET AL VS. WILLIAM PAUL FLORAL DESIGN LLC, A LIMITED ET AL
Aug 15, 2024 |Anne-Christine Massullo |COMMON COUNTS/OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT/COLLECTIONS |COMMON COUNTS/OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT/COLLECTIONS |CGC24617269
Document
UNIFY FINANCIAL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS. FRANCISCO J RODRIGUEZ
Aug 16, 2024 |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |CGC24617276
Document
LVNV FUNDING, LLC VS. REBECCA A. SPATZ ET AL
Aug 13, 2024 |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |CGC24617183
Document
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS. BRADLEY HUNT SANTELLI, A.K.A. BRAD H. SANTELLI, ET AL
Nov 15, 2023 |RICHARD B. ULMER |COMMON COUNTS/OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT/COLLECTIONS |COMMON COUNTS/OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT/COLLECTIONS |CGC23610444
Document
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC VS. DANIEL YERA-PAEZ ET AL
Aug 13, 2024 |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |CGC24617188
Document
LVNV FUNDING LLC VS. SCOTT WILBER ET AL
Aug 13, 2024 |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740) |CGC24617178
Document
AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS. ANTONY BRETTKELLY ET AL
Aug 13, 2024 |Anne-Christine Massullo |COMMON COUNTS/OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT/COLLECTIONS |COMMON COUNTS/OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT/COLLECTIONS |CGC24617175
