John Lascoe et al vs. Selene Finance LP et al

consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved; (2) complexity: i.e., whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) prejudice: i.e, whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430–431.

Here, because both CU0002314and CU0002605 arise out of the same occurrence, involve the same defendants, and involve common questions of fact and law, and because no party opposes the motion, the Court finds consolidation is in the interest of justice and GRANTS the motion.

CU0002314 shall be the lead case. All future filings shall be in that case with captions noting both case numbers and the fact of consolidation. No further filings shall be made in CU0002605.

7. CU0002636 John Lascoe et al vs. Selene Finance LP et al

Attorney John S. Sargetis’ unopposed motion to be relieved as counsel is granted. The order relieving counsel will be deemed effective upon the filing of a proof of service with the Court evidencing both plaintiffs have been served with the order. See California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(e).

8. CU0002801 In the Matter of Irina Naduhovskaya

No appearance required. Petitioner is directed to correct the issues below forthwith. The matter is continued to August 24, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. A.

• There is no request or order appointing a guardian ad litem in this matter. • The Petition is illegible due to either how it was scanned or the copy quality of what was filed. • 5 describes that the minor was struck by the vehicle in the incident, whereas the medical notes state the minor was not struck, but rather her bicycle was struck causing the minor to fall. • Issues with the Medical Expenses and Net Settlement Amount: o 12.a: states medical expenses paid in the amount of $3,261.58, including $2,631.87 paid by petitioner, and $989.71 by private health insurance.

This totals $3,621.58. Correct the total amount paid in 12.a(2). o 12.b(f)(ii): states reimbursement is to be made to the plan in the amount of $989.71. o 12.b(5)(b)(D): correct the amount paid as described above. o 14.b(1): does not include all medical expenses because it omits the $989.71 to be reimbursed. o 15 and 16: includes the medical expense $989.71 but omits the medical expense of $2,631.87 paid by petitioner. • Attachment 17a: the retainer agreement is attached but not labeled.

The Court also notes a Request for Dismissal was filed on June 30, 2026 stating “dismissal subject to proof of deposit into blocked account.” However, “At no time has this court approved any minor’s compromise in this matter. Such approval is a prerequisite to a valid settlement.”

4