VERDUZCO, MARIA vs NAIDU, SHALVINA

address same outside of default proceedings which Defendant asserts are actively preventing Defendant from liquidating assets and repaying Plaintiff, Defendant's emotional distress and mental health issues over the death of his daughter which negatively impacted his ability to prevent a defense to the action and Defendant's diligence in acting to pursue relief herein, pursuant to the Court's inherent equitable jurisdiction, Defendant's motion is granted conditionally.”(Moghaddam v. Bone (2006), 142 Cal.App.4th 283; Rappleyea v. Campbell, (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975; Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 473 (b)).

The grant of the requested relief is conditioned on the following: Within fourteen days of the date of this order Defendant shall provide a bond undertaking in the sum of $332,500 based on the compensatory damages determined recoverable by Plaintiff according to the Court's default judgment herein of November 17, 2025.

A fine of the minimum and attorney fees is appropriate. Defendant shall also reimburse Plaintiff for his reasonable attorney fees and costs of $15,597 so far incurred in this matter due to Defendant's inaction herein. A penalty of one thousand dollars ($1000) is imposed upon Defendant. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 473(c) (1)(A)).

A Case Management Conference is set for October 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-25-008189 - VERDUZCO, MARIA vs NAIDU, SHALVINA - Cross Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default/Judgment - GRANTED.

The Court finds that Defendant's Motion is timely and provides grounds for the grant of the exercise of the Court's discretion to grant the requested relief on the basis of a finding of mistake on the part of Cross Defendant's prior and current Counsel and on a finding that said relief does not prejudice Plaintiff. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 473 (b); Kramer v. Traditional Escrow, Inc., (2020) 56 Cal. App. 5th 13).

The Court does not consider Mr. Field's declaration as a complying attorney affidavit of fault. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 473 (b); Carmel, Ltd. v. Tavoussi, (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 393, as modified (June 26, 2009).

Defendant's Proposed Answer is attached to the motion as required by statute. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 473 (b); Carmel, Ltd. v. Tavoussi, (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 393, as modified (June 26, 2009 Accordingly, Defendant's motion is hereby granted. (Maynard v. Brandon, (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 364).

Cross Defendant shall file her Answer to the Cross Complaint within ten (10) days of the date of this order. Cross Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order within five (5) court days that comports with this ruling.

CV-25-007982 - GALLARDO, ROSARIO DAMAR ZEPEDA vs SKITTONE ALMOND SHELLER INC - Defendant Skittone Almond Sheller Inc's Motion to Compel Arbitration - GRANTED.

The Court finds that the parties' arbitration agreement, is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. (9.U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq.; Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., (2003). 539 U.S. 52; Aviation Data, Inc. v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., (2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 1522).

The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties covering the instant dispute and that Plaintiff has discharged its burden of proving the existence of same by the preponderance of the evidence. (9. U.S.C.ASec. 1 et seq; Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1281; Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233, 244; Martinez v. BaronHR, Inc. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 962, 967; Gamboa v. Ne. Cmty. Clinic, (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 158).

The Court finds that to the extent that Plaintiff was not required to execute the Dispute Resolution Agreement as a condition of employment and that the Dispute Resolution contained an optout provision which was in bold font the Dispute Resolution Agreement was not a contract of adhesion. (Civil Code section 1670.5; Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 102; Pardee Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1081; Ayala-Ventura v. Superior Court of Fresno County (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 241, 254-255.)

A high degree of substantive unconscionability would therefore be required to render the Dispute Resolution Agreement unenforceable. The more substantively oppressive the contract term, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required for court to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable, and vice versa. (Nelson v. Dual Diagnosis Treatment Ctr., Inc., (2022)77 Cal. App. 5th 643).

The court finds that the provision of the Dispute Resolution Agreement that requires the arbitration to be kept