LVNV Funding LLC v. Gomez

jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(b).)

The Court has considered the arguments and evidence submitted by both parties and determines, at this time, bifurcation as requested by Reitzfeld is not warranted.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED, without prejudice.

Counsel for Plaintiffs shall give notice of this ruling.

5. LVNV Funding LLC v. Gomez 21-1219223 The motion to enforce settlement filed by plaintiff LVNV Funding LLC (Plaintiff) is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 1, 2026, AT 1:30 P.M. IN DEPARTMENT C20.

There is no proof of service filed showing defendant Jasmine Gomez (Defendant) was served with this motion.

The motion is therefore CONTINUED as stated above.

Plaintiff is ordered to file a proof of service showing Defendant was properly and timely served with the motion. Said proof of service shall be filed at least 10 court days prior to the hearing.

Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice.

6. Tykonina v. In-N-Out Burgers, Inc. 25-1470899 Before the Court is a motion by In-N-Out Burgers, Inc. (Defendant) for an order quashing Plaintiff’s PMK deposition notices for Mark Courtney and John Mark Jennings. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is DENIED.

Attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jessica Marsella is a “Notice of Videotaped Deposition Of Person(S) Most Qualified At In-N-Out Burgers, Inc., And Request For Production Of Documents At Deposition.” This deposition notice was served on 3/4/26. Neither Mark Courtney nor John Mark Jennings are mentioned in the deposition notice.

The Court notes that it may be that Defendant intended to file a different motion or submit different exhibits because in parts of the motion there is reference to deposition notices for Courtney and Jennings being served on 4/21/26. (See page 4, lines 22-26) However, those deposition notices are not part of the court’s file.

Accordingly, the Defendant’s request “for an order quashing Plaintiff’s PMK deposition notices for Mark Courtney and John Mark Jennings” is DENIED.

Defendant also requests a protective order be entered “because the categories [in the deposition notices] are not tailored to either witness.” (Motion at 10:1) However, because the deposition notices are not part of the record, the request for a protective order is DENIED.