Paco Ventures LLC vs. Ford Foundation Drilling, LLC

TENTATIVE RULINGS July 13, 2026

# Case Name Tentative

102 2025-01461255 1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 2. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Paco Ventures LLC vs. Ford The motions by Plaintiff Paco Ventures LLC (“Plaintiff”) for an order compelling Defendant Foundation Ford Foundation Drilling LLC (“Ford”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Drilling, LLC Interrogatories, Set One, number 17.1 as it relates to Plaintiff’s Request for Admission numbers 5-8 and an order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 21-23 are DENIED.

Request for sanctions are denied.

Ford is ordered to give notice.

103 2025-01469411 1. Motion for Attorney Fees 2. Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal on Settled Case Hopper vs. Hyundai Motor Plaintiff General Hopper’s motion for award of attorneys’ fees and costs is granted. America Plaintiff is awarded fees of $18,870 and costs of $555.05. The Court reduced the attorneys’ fees for time billed for clerical work.

Plaintiff is ordered to prepare a proposed judgment, including the costs in the amount ordered.

The Court intends on dismissing this matter with prejudice in light of the fact that this matter has settled. If Plaintiff opposes the Court’s tentative ruling in this regard, Plaintiff’s counsel should attend the hearing and be prepared to address the OSC.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of this ruling.

104 2025-01475861 1. Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication 2. Case Management Conference American Express National Bank vs. Plaintiff American Express National Bank (“Plaintiff”) seeks summary judgment on Torres Plaintiff’s sole cause of action for breach of contract alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Ricardo M. Torres (“Defendant”).

As an initial matter, the Court notes Defendant’s address on Plaintiff’s proof of service for the notice of motion and moving papers does not match Defendant’s address on the caption of Defendant’s answer. (Proof of Service, ROA No. 31; Answer, ROA No. 9.) However, the address matches the address on Defendant’s opposition to this motion. (Defendant’s Opposition, ROA No. 51; Defendant’s Separate Statement, ROA No. 50; Defendant’s Declaration, ROA No. 52.) Defendant timely opposed the motion without objecting to service. Defendant is directed to confirm whether Defendant’s address is 1805 S. Garnsey St. or 1806 S. Garney St.

The Court also notes Defendant served his opposition papers by mail. However,