OVRAHIM, NARMELIN vs UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

in accordance with the provisions contained therein. As no other indicia of substantive unconscionability are present, the agreement is not invalid on that ground. Lastly, as to the question of whether class claims are included within the scope of arbitrable issues in this instance, the Court finds that question to be more properly submitted to the arbitrator for determination. (Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233.)

All remaining proceedings, including the representative (PAGA) claim asserted in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, are stayed pending completion of arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1281.4.)

CV-25-011555 - CERVERA, CECILIA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC - a) Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera's Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One and Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion; b) Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera's Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One and Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion.

a-b) These matters are CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to September 10, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23, to be heard following the hearing on Plaintiff's counsel's motion to be relieved as counsel.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-18-003129 - OVRAHIM, NARMELIN vs UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY - Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration on Order Granting Summary Judgment - CONTINUED, on Plaintiff's motion.

California Code of Civ Pro Sec. 437c, subd. (h) permits the Court to order a continuance on a Motion for Summary Judgment to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, where facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented. " The Court finds that information related to the precise location and extent of the Defendant's 2017 fencing installation relative to the open approach Decedent used, when Defendant set the fencing in motion, what prompted it, and whether fencing this corridor reduced pedestrian incidents are relevant to the issue of foreseeability of risk herein, and the potential imposition of a duty to remedy on Defendant and to Plaintiffs' Opposition to this Motion.

However, due to the late amendment to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions, said information was not relevant and or previously available to oppose Defendant's motion. Accordingly, the hearing on the motion for reconsideration of the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is continued at Plaintiffs' request to permit discovery into this additional material evidence.?(Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015), 238 Cal.App.4th 632, review filed, review denied; Ambrose v. Michelin North America, Inc. (2005), 134 Cal.App.4th 1350;