LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC V. DURAN ANGEL, LUIS A ET AL

10. 24CV02608 LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC V. DURAN ANGEL, LUIS A ET AL EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Loss Mitigation

The Motion is unopposed and is granted. The Case Management Conference on June 24, 2026 is continued to September 30, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. The Court will sign the form of order submitted by Plaintiff.

11-12. 24CV02890 RAY, ROWENA V. SIERRA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION EVENTS: (1) Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlemnet, (2) Review Hearing – Final Settlement Approval

The Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Enhancement Award, and Settlement Administration Costs is granted. The Court will sign the form of order submitted by counsel with the addition of the final compliance hearing date on December 2, 2026 at 10:30 a.m., and a deadline for filing the Declarations attesting to compliance no later than 7 calendar days before the hearing.

13. 25CV01221 VETTER, KRISTOPHER GUY V. CITY OF CHICO EVENT: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; and for Monetary Sanctions

The Court finds, as to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, that the 35-question limit set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §2030.030(a)(1), (b), has been exceeded. Plaintiff’s subsequent “withdrawal” of Special Interrogatories, Set One, after Defendant had provided responses is inappropriate and of no effect. Given that Plaintiff failed to provide a Declaration of Necessity, as required by Code of Civil Procedure §2030.050, the Motion to Compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two is denied.

As to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, the Court finds that neither the term “INCIDENT” or “property” or “PRR” are so ambiguous as to render the Requests unintelligible and prevent the Defendant from responding. As such, the conclusion that Defendant is unable to comply because the terms INCIDENT, property and/or PRR are undefined in Propounding Party's Requests for Production, lacks merit and the Court orders Defendant to provide further responses to Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

In regard to Request No. 10, Defendant’s response does not satisfy the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure §2031.210 which requires a response include one of the following: “(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities. (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item. (3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.”