TIQUE V VILLATORO

(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. T) August 18, 2026 DEPARTMENT T LAW AND MOTION RULINGS If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

19STCV23068 ZHOU V SIADATAN Motion for reconsiderations or motion to strike void order: Denied. The motion for reconsideration is late and the court does not reconsider the order. The order itself is not void and will not be stricken. The court did not exceed its jurisdiction. The decision was not a discovery sanction. Instead, it was based on the inherent power of the court to control the proceedings to assure there is fairness in the process. The previous order stands. The court has already advised counsel for moving party that sending a letter direct to the court was improper.

Case Number: 24VECV04425 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: T 24VECV04425 ARANDA V CITY OF LA Ex parte to advance hearing on motion to bifurcate: Grant, motion advanced to Sept. 4. at 8:30 a.m. Opposition by 8/24. Reply by 8/28. The court will sign the online order.

Case Number: 25VECV04542 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: T 25VECV04542 TIQUE V VILLATORO Ex parte application to continue: Deny. No good cause shown. You were told at the CMC that the court would not continue the trial. You are not in PI court anymore. This case was set for trial 14 months after the lawsuit was filed. Attorney Natalie Briones and attorney Victoria Rodrigues were told there would be no continuance of the trial date at the CMC on 2/6/2026. This is a Pathways case and you were ordered to attend a Mediation Volunteer Panel mediation no later than 10/2/2026. You were allowed to go to private mediation only if you followed the opt-out procedures in the Pathways Order. Did you opt out? Even if you did, your mediation cutoff is still OCTOBER 2, 2026. Please read the Pathways order. At this time, the court does not see good cause to continue. | Home -->)" -->