Motion to deem matters admitted
granted in the amount of $1,500 against Plaintiffs’ attorneys of record, Strategic Legal Practices, APC, who is directed to pay them to Defendant’s counsel within 15 business days of this order. GM’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.
2. 25CV03160, Looney v. Harsiddhi Foods Inc.
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. OSCAR A. PARDO)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
19. PLEASE USE DEPT. 19’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
Plaintiff Gary E. Looney, dba Collectronics of California (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendants Harsiddhi Foods, Inc. dba VJ’s Sports Bar X Pizza and Varun Limbachiya, individually as personal guarantor of Harsiddhi Foods Inc. (“Defendants”), to furnish responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Post Judgment Interrogatories and Plaintiff’s Post Judgment Demand for Production of Documents and Tangible Things. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $60.
On September 23, 2025, Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Defendants in the amount of $5,252.37. On October 13, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendants with form interrogatories and a request for production of documents. (Looney Decl. ¶1, Ex. A.) As of the date of the motion, no responses have been provided. (Id., at ¶¶2-4.)
The motion is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to provide responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and to pay sanctions in the amount of $60 within 30 days of this order. The court will sign the proposed order.
3. 25CV04758, Garcia v. LCS Community Employment, LLC
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. JANE GASKELL)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
17. PLEASE USE DEPT. 17’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
This matter is on calendar for the motion of Defendant LCS Community Employment LLC to sever Plaintiffs’ claims or, in the alternative, to order separate trials.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
This matter was originally heard on March 25, 2026, and was continued for proof of service showing service of the motion after it was filed or of notice of the hearing. As of the time the court reviewed this matter, proof of service had not been filed. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. This court’s minute order shall constitute the order of the court.
4. 25CV06130, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Foley
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. JANE GASKELL)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
17. PLEASE USE DEPT. 17’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE). 3
Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) moves pursuant to CCP sections 2023.010 et al. and 2033.280 for an order deeming the truth of all specified facts in the Requests for Admissions, Set One, propounded by Plaintiff on Defendant Kevin Foley (“Defendant”) on November 18, 2025, admitted.
If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (CCP § 2033.280.)
On November 18, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendant with its Request for Admissions. (Langedyk decl., ¶2, Exhibit 1.) Plaintiff has not received a response. (Id., ¶3.)
As Plaintiff has shown it served Requests for Admissions and Defendant has not responded, unless Defendant Kevin Foley serves responses in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 before the hearing on this motion, this court will GRANT the motion deeming the admissions admitted and sign the order provided by Plaintiff.
5. 25CV06515, United Financial Casualty Company v. Arnold
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. DANA B. SIMONDS)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
18. PLEASE USE DEPT. 18’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
Plaintiff in Interpleader United Financial Casualty Company (“United”) moves for an order that it be discharged from all liability with respect to the Disputed Funds that are the subject matter of this action as it has deposited that amount with this court.
I. Interpleader Action, Notice of Motion
On September 18, 2025, United filed its Complaint-In-Interpleader alleging that defendants in interpleader, Max G. Arnold, The Law Office of Max G. Arnold, Inc. (“Arnold Defendants”) and Cindy Devereaux Hunter (“Defendant Hunter”) are in dispute over who is entitled to $26,138.53 from United (“the Disputed Amount”).
The Arnold Defendants represented Defendant Hunter a personal injury action. Defendant Hunter submitted a claim to United for Underinsured Motorist benefits on May 28, 2021. (Hernandez decl., ¶2.)
On February 9, 2023, Defendant Hunter signed an Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Bodily Injury Release (“UM/UIM Release”) of any and all claims arising out of the May 28, 2021, accident. (Id., ¶3.) Pursuant to the terms of the UM/UIM Release, United Financial agreed to pay Ms. Hunter a sum of $85,000 (the “Settlement Amount”) for a release of all claims under the uninsured/underinsured motorist portion of her policy. (Id., ¶3, Exhibit A.)
At or about the time Defendant Hunter entered into the UM/UIM Release, the Arnold Defendants claimed a one-third interest in the Settlement Amount based upon a Contingency Fee Agreement for attorney fees with respect to the UIM Claim. (Id., ¶4, Exhibit B.) Hunter disputes she owes the Arnold Defendants the Disputed Amount. (Id., at ¶7.)
United issued payment directly to Ms. Hunter for $58,861.47, which cleared on August 30, 2023. (Id., ¶8.) United issued a check made payable to “Law Office of Max G. Arnold Inc.” in the amount of $26,138.53, which was sent directly to Defendant Hunter but was not forwarded to the Arnold Defendants and has not been negotiated to date. (Ibid.)
On January 4, 2024, Max G. Arnold, individually, filed suit against Defendant Hunter. Defendant Hunter’s default was taken, and a default judgment was entered against her on April 15, 2025, for the amount of $29,654.70 based upon the Contingency Fee Agreement between those parties. 4