DISCOVER BANK vs SHAMA, JASMINE P

discussion is reflected in the supporting memorandum, Counsel's declaration is the only admissible evidence in support of the motion and should reflect the required discussion therein.

Lastly, the Court has concerns with regard to the language included in the settlement agreement regarding the scope of claims released by the class. Specifically, the Court questions the broad inclusion of any and all potential claims that "could have been" asserted in the action and whether the scope of the release is sufficiently tethered to the facts at issue in this action to prevent the class members' unintended release of unrelated and/or unforeseen claims. Consequently, the Court instructs counsel to confer with the goal of addressing this issue, potentially by amendment to clarify the language, and to present the Court with additional information in this regard upon resubmission of the instant motion. The parties are strongly cautioned that the Court will be reluctant to approve the settlement if this issue is not satisfactorily addressed.

CV-24-004267 - VANN, SOCHENDA vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD - Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint [CCP 473(A)(1), 576; CRC 3.1324] - DENIED.

While the Court recognizes the liberal judicial policy favoring amendment, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is reasonable or necessary. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324.) Specifically, the necessity of amendment appears to rest on discovery responses which do not provide factual support for the proposed claim against Sutter Health herein. Therefore, the Court finds that granting leave to amend would constitute an idle act, as the legal theory Plaintiff seeks to allege against Sutter Health lacks merit. (See, e.g. (Oakland Raiders v.

National Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 652.) Additionally, the record reveals Plaintiff's lack of diligence in conducting discovery with regard to potential claims against Sutter Health and her unreasonable delay in bringing the subject motion. More significantly, the Court finds that the above factors, combined with Plaintiff's concession in repeated amended pleadings that Sutter Health was improperly named, misled Defendant with regard to Plaintiff's intentions in the case and the need to mount a defense thereto, resulting in prejudice to Defendant which further supports the denial of the motion.

CV-25-002020 - SALAS, OSCAR vs HINOJOSA, VIVIANA - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED.

The effectiveness of the order shall be delayed until proof of service of the signed order on the client is submitted. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(e).) In addition, the proposed order should be corrected to accurately reflect the future Case Management Conference set on 9-14-26. Counsel shall submit a revised order in compliance with this ruling.

CV-25-002490 - ROMERO, ROGER vs SCROGGINS, JAMES EDWARD, Jr - Plaintiff's Motion Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 663 - DENIED.

Plaintiff's motion is not proper under Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 663, as it fails to seek entry of a "new and different judgment," as envisioned by that statute, and instead seeks to vacate the entry of judgment and return the case for trial. (See, e.g. Forman v. Knapp Press (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 200, 203-203.) Moreover, while the law permits the Court to treat the motion as one for new trial pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 657, Plaintiff has nevertheless failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for relief under that section.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:

CV-23-004868 - VILLANUEVA, ENRIQUE vs SOTO, LUIS - Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement - CONTINUED, on Plaintiff's motion.

At Plaintiffs' request and based on the continued implementation of the parties' Settlement Agreement, this matter is continued to February 19th, 2027, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.

CV-24-008594 - DISCOVER BANK vs SHAMA, JASMINE P - Plaintiff's Motion for Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant's Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement - GRANTED, unopposed.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the parties of November 26, 2024, and Defendant's failure to timely pay the sums due under said agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said agreement, entitling Plaintiff to all outstanding sums under said agreement as well as costs as agreed upon in said Settlement Agreement.

Plaintiff's motion is accordingly granted. Crediting Defendant with the sum of $1,280.00 paid under said agreement and including costs and fees of $408.73, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant for $1,986.25. Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299.

CV-25-002580 - RUIZ, JOSE RUIZ vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Plaintiff Jose Ruiz's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, Request for Sanctions - GRANTED.

Without any knowledge of information as to the service of supplementary responses by Defendant as agreed upon with Plaintiff per the parties' Joint Status Statement, the Court will address the motion in its entirety. Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 2017.010. Furthermore, in the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531). Requests for Production that relate to Plaintiff's specific vehicle are clearly relevant and discoverable. Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 2017.010.

The court previously noted Defendant's reliance on California Assembly Bill No. 1755, Code of Civ. Proc Sec. 871.26(h)(1) - (17) and notes again that this list refers to "initial disclosures": it is not an exhaustive list and does not preempt statutory discovery. Additionally, Code of Civ. Proc Sec. 871.26(h), (9) and (10), provide for the disclosure of: (9) Published technical service bulletins ("TSBs") 1 for the same make, model, and year reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle, and (10) Published information service bulletins ("ISBs") for the same make, model, and year reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle. (Emphasis added).

Information regarding other vehicles of the same make, model but of different years was held relevant and discoverable in Doppes v Bentley Motors. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 4th 967. (See also Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, as modified on denial of reh'g (July 8, 2013). This information is relevant to establish Defendant's knowledge of the defects at issue for purposes of demonstrating willfulness for the imposition of civil penalties, if available. Civ.Code Sec.”1794. Defendant's policies and practices for addressing and evaluating repurchase requests by its customers are also relevant and discoverable for the same reasons.

The burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond to discovery remains at all times with the party resisting same. Williams, v Superior Court (2017) 3 cal.5 th 531). A party objecting to discovery on grounds of undue burden is obliged to present evidence of the burden responding would entail, showing the quantum of work required, and to supply the basis for a determination that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Williams, supra. See also West Pico Furniture Co.of Los Angeles v Superior Court. In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407. Defendant has not met its burden in this regard.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is granted. Defendant shall provide supplementary Code compliant responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set One, Nos.1-58 within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order. Monetary sanctions of $1,600.00 are imposed against Defendant for Plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in filing and prosecuting this motion. Code of Civ. Proc. 2031.300.

CV-26-002704 - CHAHAL, RAJWANT K vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INC - Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration - GRANTED.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendants filed a Supplementary Reply contrary to the Court's directions. Accordingly, Defendant's Supplementary Reply shall be disregarded.