Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to CCP 2033.280 - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-25-005384 - BOWERS, LATONA R vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION - a) Defendant's Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, or Alternatively, for Immediate Expungement- GRANTED. b) Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Enforcement Pending Appeal - DENIED.

a) The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of demonstrating the probable validity of her real property claims at this post-judgment stage, i.e., the Court does not conclude that the appellate court is more likely than not to reverse the judgment on appeal. (Amalgamated Bank v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1015.) Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order of expungement herein. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 405.32.) The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 405.38. As no details with regard to the reasonable amount of such an award have been provided at this juncture, Defendant may file a separate motion in that regard.

b) The Court finds that the subject proceedings are not automatically stayed by the pending appeal. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 916(a); Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 191.) Further, the Court declines to exercise discretion to impose a stay in this instance.

CV-25-006013 - ARENA FUNDING SOURCE vs BIRMINGHAM, THERESA C - Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Dismissal - DENIED. The mandatory provisions of Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 473(b) are not applicable herein, as the dismissal was voluntarily obtained and did not result from a situation akin to a default. (See, e.g. Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5 th 166, 175; Huens v. Tatum (1997) 52 Cal.App.4 th 259.) Moreover, Plaintiff did not provide sufficient information for the Court to determine whether relief is appropriate under the discretionary provisions of the statute.

UD-24-000777 - SUNRISE VILLAGE MHC LLC vs WANGUN, GWEN - Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 7-31-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. The Court notes that Mr. Rowe's declaration references "Exhibit A" (his billing statement relative to this matter), but the referenced exhibit is missing from the Court's file. In addition, Defendant's opposition argues that the exhibit was not provided for her review either. Therefore, the Court has determined to continue the hearing, as above, so that the subject document can be provided to the Court and to Defendant for review before the hearing.

Plaintiff's counsel shall submit a supplemental declaration attaching the missing document and shall serve the same on Defendant no later than 6-26-26. The parties may file supplemental opposition and reply briefs relative to the instant motion within the statutory time period as calculated from the continued hearing date.

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

CV-24-005362 - SMITH, RALPH vs HYDRATION SOURCE LLC - Defendant Hydration Source, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication - DENIED. As a preliminary matter the Court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff's late filed Opposition to this motion, based on the strong judicial policy of addressing cases on their merits rather than on procedural bases, and the drastic nature of a summary judgment motion. Furthermore, Defendant did not demonstrate any prejudice occasioned by said late filing. (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1300 (d); Mackey v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 640); Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc., (2010)186 Cal. App. 4th 755; Kapitanski v. Von's Grocery Co., (1983)146 Cal. App. 3d 29, 1). Plaintiff's Counsel is, however, required to ensure future compliance with statutory filing deadlines.