Guzman v. Harvard Village LLC

June 8, 2026) of Cross-Complainant Baek to compel Cross-Defendant Tishbi to serve further responses to Requests for Production (Set One). The Court ORDERS Tishbi to serve code compliant, verified, further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1-8, 10-11, 14-18, 22-24, and 27-31, without objections, and consistent with the requirements of this ruling, by no later than September 1, 2026. The motion is otherwise denied (including the requests for sanctions). Motion No.

6. The Court GRANTS IN PART the motion (filed June 10, 2026) of Cross-Complainant Baek to compel Cross-Defendant Esguerra to serve further responses to Requests for Production (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One). The Court ORDERS Esguerra to serve code compliant, verified, further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 3-10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19 without objections, and consistent with the requirements of this ruling. Because the Court (in Motion No. 1) is sustaining, with leave to amend, the demurrer of Esguerra to all causes of action asserted against him in the FACC, Esguerra's obligation to comply with this Order is conditioned on Baek filing a Second Amended Cross-Complaint that asserts one or more causes of action against Esguerra.

If Baek does so, Esguerra must comply with this Order by no later than September 1, 2026. The motion is otherwise denied (including the requests for sanctions). Motion No.

7. The Court GRANTS IN PART the motion (filed June 15, 2026) of Cross-Complainant Baek to compel Cross-Defendant Dietz to serve verified initial responses to Requests for Production (Set One). The Court ORDERS Dietz to serve code compliant, verified, responses to Requests for Production (Set One) without objections. Because the Court (in Motion No. 3) is sustaining, with leave to amend, the demurrer of Dietz to all causes of action asserted against it in the FACC, Dietz's obligation to comply with this Order is conditioned on Baek filing a Second Amended Cross-Complaint that asserts one or more causes of action against Dietz. If Baek does so, Dietz must comply with this Order by no later than September 15, 2026. The request for sanctions is denied. The Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice.

Petitions for Approval of Minors' Compromises for Claimants Madylin Rose Vasquez (Age 5) and Noemi Venecia Muralles (Age 3) Tentative Ruling

The Court excuses the personal appearance of the Claimants. Counsel and Guardians Ad Litem may appear in person or by LA Court Connect. The Court has reviewed the petitions for approval of minors' compromises for claimants Madylin Rose Vasquez (Age 5), and Noemi Venecia Muralles (Age 3), filed on July 20. All substantive and procedural requirements are satisfied. The proposed settlement and the proposed fees are fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petitions for Approval of Minor's Compromise for Claimants Madylin Rose Vasquez (Age 5), and Noemi Venecia Muralles (Age 3).

The Court APPROVES the proposed orders submitted on July 20. Moving party is ordered to give notice. The Court notes that no Notice of Settlement of Entire Case (CM-200) has been filed. Pending the filing of the Notice of Settlement (or entry of a request for dismissal), the trial date and final status conference date remain on calendar.

Case Number: 25STCV09460 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: 514 The Court will call this matter. The Court understands the argument that trying this matter before the Seeley v. Zenith Homes case pending in Riverside County Superior Court is resolved would be premature and would potentially involve an inefficient expenditure of judicial resources. But trial is not scheduled until August 23, 2027. Should discovery proceed here so that once the Seely litigation is resolved this case may proceed to trial promptly? And, if Defendants believe that they have a dispositive statute of limitations defense, should Defendants be permitted to file a summary judgment on that issue?

Case Number: 25STCV31940 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: 514 Gibbs v. United Parcel Service, Inc. 25STCV31940 Defendant Marquez Mitchell's Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Case Management Conference Tentative The hearing on the demurrer is continued so that the parties can satisfy the statutory requirement to meet and confer. The Court will call this matter and proceed with the Case Management Conference.

Background

This case arises out of an employment relationship. On November 3, 2025, Brittney Gibbs ("Plaintiff") filed the complaint in this action. On January 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (the "FAC") against United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS"), Marquez Mitchell ("Mitchell"), Jim