ROWLEY. vs BAILEY

simultaneously with, filing its motion to compel, there is no indication in the record that the court considered any of the relevant factors.” (Ibid.)

Given it is past the discovery cutoff date and there is no motion pending before trial to reopen discovery, it would be an abuse of discretion for the Court to consider Honda’s motion. The motion is DENIED as untimely.

3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS CVRI2504018 ROWLEY. vs BAILEY COUNSEL FOR DENNIS ROWLEY Tentative Ruling:

Counsel is ordered to appear in person or via Zoom for an in-camera hearing.

4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MAGDALENO vs JETRO MOTION TO COMPEL CVRI2601771 HOLDINGS, LLC ARBITRATION Tentative Ruling:

Moving party: Defendant Jetro Holdings, LLC Represented by: O’Hagan Meyer LLP

Responding party: Plaintiff Aaron Magdaleno Represented by: Laurel Employment Law

On October 9, 2024, Plaintiff Aaron Magdaleno began his employment with Defendant Jetro Holdings, LLC as a Forklift Driver at their facility in Jurupa Valley. Plaintiff disclosed he had a back issue due to a prior car accident. He was required to work in extreme freezer conditions and move heavy boxes, which exacerbated his back condition. In December 2024 he requested disability leave, which was verbally approved. In August 2025, while on leave, he was terminated with no notice. He was cleared to return to work in December 2025 and in January 2025 when he contacted Defendant to return, he was informed he had been terminated.

On March 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed his complaint for: 1.) Disability Discrimination (Gov. Code, § 12940(a)); 2.) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation (Gov. Code, § 12940(m)); 3.) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Gov. Code, § 12940(n)); 4.) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(h)); 5.) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; 6.) Failure to Provide Employment Records