Power vs. Deerfield Apartments, LLC

4. Financial Condition and Insurance Policy Limits

HLC is in stable financial condition, and its insurance carrier has insurance in an amount apparently sufficient to satisfy the probable amount of a judgment on Plaintiff’s claims.

5. No Evidence of Fraud or Collusion

HLC’s settlement with Plaintiff is the result of an arms-length discussion of the risks of protracted litigation, including an assessment of liability. Cal Coast does not allege any evidence of fraud or collusion.

In sum, the court finds that HLC has presented substantial evidence of its potential liability and that the settlement represents a fair proportion of its liability. For these reasons, the motion for determination of a good faith settlement is GRANTED.

Clerk to give notice.

9 Pate vs. Lane

2021-01231702 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

No tentative.

Before ruling on the motion, the court makes the following disclosure:

DISCLOSURE The parties are advised that California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(2)(a) requires that in all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure, section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification. Although Judge Lo firmly believes he can be impartial in all matters before the court, the Court discloses the following: Judge Lo’s son is a neurosurgical resident-physician at UCI Medical Center.

10 Power vs. Deerfield Apartments, LLC

2025-01473139 Motion to Compel Arbitration

Tentative ruling was issued on 5/7/26.

Case Management Conference is VACATED.

This action is STAYED pending completion of arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

An Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Review hearing is scheduled for February 5, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Department C44.

Defendants shall give notice.

11 Solorzano vs. Origence Lending, Inc.

2026-01554439 Motion to Compel Arbitration

Defendants CU Direct Corporation dba Origence, erroneously sued as Origence Lending, Inc., and Roselie Javier’s motion to compel plaintiff Liseth Solorzano to arbitrate her claims, is GRANTED. (9 U.S.C, § 2; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2 [authorizing motion].)

Plaintiff Liseth Solorzano is ordered to arbitrate her claims in this action against moving parties, pursuant to the parties’ arbitration agreement.

Moving parties have met their initial burden of presenting evidence of an executed arbitration agreement requiring arbitration of plaintiff’s claims in this action. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [moving party’s initial burden to present evidence of arbitration agreement]; Levine Decl. in support of motion, ¶¶ 5-15, Ex. C thereto [DocuSign “Certificate of Completion”], Ex D thereto, §§ 5, 7 [“Arbitration Policy & Agreement” requiring both parties to arbitrate “all Claims between Employee and the Company that the Employee may have against the Company, or the Company may have against the Employee that arise prior to or at any time after the Effective Date of this Agreement,” including “[w]rongful or retaliatory discharge, demotion,” “[d]iscrimination, harassment or retaliation based on sex, gender, gender identity, race, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, national origin, veteran status, age, pregnancy, leaves of absence, handicap, genetic condition, a physical or mental disability, whistleblowing, or any other characteristic or activity protected by applicable law,” claims under “the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,” “[t]ortious conduct of any type,” and “[a]ny other statutory or common law claims under any law of the United States, or any State, municipality, local agency or any other government entity, including any applicable laws relating to discrimination in employment and/or wage and hour laws, and/or, violations providing for injunctive, declaratory, and/or other equitable relief”].)

While plaintiff contends she did not “knowingly” agree to arbitrate employment claims, she does not dispute executing the Arbitration Policy & Agreement, or that it applies to her claims in this action.