Unspecified

to receive a copy of the court's tentative order. Case Number: 24SMCV03726 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: I Please call the courtroom after 8 am to obtain a copy of the court's tentative order.

Case Number: 25SMCV04216 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: I This is a motion for a trial preference. Defendant does not oppose the motion, but asks that the court essentially enter a case management order so that the parties will be ready for trial. In light of that, the court will GRANT the motion and set the trial date. The court will discuss with the parties the specific trial date. The court agrees with the defense that a CMO is appropriate given the tight schedule.

The court will therefore recess the matter at this time and order the parties to return at 9:00 am tomorrow. During the interim, the parties should meet and confer and try and agree on a schedule. Hopefully, with the trial date set, they will be able to work back from that date. The court notes that its FSC and trial rules remain in effect even though the trial is being significantly advanced. The parties will also need to work together starting very soon to ensure that they are ready for trial. The court is also aware that plaintiff has various medical issues. Obviously, some of them might have to take priority over depositions and the like. But her deposition speedy responses to discovery will need to be a priority to the extent it reasonably can be.

Case Number: 25SMCV04701 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: I The court very much hopes that yesterday's hearing moots the need for a hearing today. The court's tentative thinking remains the same.

Case Number: 25SMCV06406 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: I This is a motion brought by the defendant to dismiss or strike aspects of the FAC. By way of background, the decedent here is Shahin Shadab. He allegedly died due to malpractice committed by the defense. The action is being prosecuted by plaintiff Shervin Shadab. There are two kinds of causes of action in the FAC. One type includes the causes of action for which plaintiff is the plaintiff--like wrongful death. The other is where the cause of action is a survival cause of action. In other words, the injury and damages are not those of plaintiff, but rather those of the decedent, but which survive decedent's death.

It is the latter type that is here under attack. Defendants' theory is that in a survival case the prosecuting plaintiff is not prosecuting a cause of action in plaintiff's own right but rather is prosecuting an action to benefit the decedent's estate. Because the real beneficiary of the action is the estate rather than the plaintiff, defendants argue, the plaintiff requires an attorney to go forward. Because plaintiff is currently self-represented, defendants contend that the survival claims cannot go forward and ought to be dismissed or stricken. (Defendant does not argue that the wrongful death cause of action is infirm.)