Espinoza Aceves vs. Southern California Edison Company

30-2025- The motion of attorney Lessing C. Solov from Solov & 01537296-CU- Teitell, a P.C., to be relieved as counsel of record for PA-CJC plaintiff Fermin Sepulveda is GRANTED.

Moving attorney has shown compliance with all the requirements of the California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.

Moving attorney is ORDERED to give notice to client, and file proof of service of the Court’s order as entered.

Withdrawal will be effective upon filing of proof of service of the order.

3 Hansei Motion to Vacate Dismissal Solutions, LLC. vs. Better Soul, Plaintiff Hansei Solutions, LLC’s unopposed motion to Inc. vacate the dismissal of the fifth and sixth causes of action 30-2024- in the First Amended Complaint entered on 3/6/2026 01404393-CU- (ROA 52) is GRANTED. BC-CJC Plaintiff has demonstrated the request for dismissal was due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. (Code Civ. Proc.§ 473, subd. (b).)

The dismissal of the fifth and sixth causes of action in the First Amended Complaint entered on 3/6/2026 (ROA 52) is VACATED.

Clerk to give notice.

4 Espinoza Aceves Motion to Consolidate Cases vs. Southern California Edison Defendant/cross-complainant Southern California Edison Company Company’s (SCE) motion to consolidate is DENIED. 30-2024- 01436382-CU- SCE moves to consolidate the following cases for all PO-CJC purposes:

(1) Jonhathan Espinoza Aceves v. Southern California Edison Company, et al., case number 2024-01436382 (Aceves) (2) KF Properties, Inc. v. Brightview Landscapes, LLC, case number 2025-01494489 (KF Properties); and (3) Southern California Edison Company v. Brightview Landscape Services, Inc., et al., case number 2025- 01534849 (SCE)

KF Properties was dismissed with prejudice as to the entire action of all parties and all causes of action on 7/14/26. (ROA 42.)

It does not appear from the allegations in Aceves and SCE that these matters involve the same incident. Aceves alleges the subject premises is 845 West La Veta Avenue, Ste. 108 Los Angeles, CA 90069. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Aceves further alleges the incident occurred on 4/17/2024 while Plaintiff was performing landscaping work and made contact with underground electric wiring installed and maintained by Defendants. (Compl. ¶ 9.)

SCE alleges it was the owner of a certain primary cable, located at or near 805 W. La Veta Avenue, Orange, CA 92868. (Compl. ¶ 12.) SCE further alleges Defendants damaged SCE’s primary cable while performing excavation work on 4/14/2024. (Compl. ¶¶12-15.)

As the complaints allege different locations (Los Angeles versus Orange), actions (landscaping versus excavation), and dates of incident (4/14/2024 versus 4/17/2024), the Court does not find they involve “a common question of law or fact.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

SCE to give notice.

5 Omega Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Case Accounting Continued to 10/16/2026. Solutions, Inc. vs. Acme Freight 30-2026- 01547608-CU- PO-CJC 6 Becerra Law Motion to Transfer Venue and Request for Fees and Firm vs. David Costs Yeremian & Defendants David Yeremian & Associates, Inc., D.Law, Associates, Inc. Inc., Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II, and Law Offices of 30-2026- 01564931-CU- Neal J. Fialkow, Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue and NP-CJC Request for Fees and Costs Pursuant to CCP § 396b(b) is GRANTED.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ requests for judicial notice as unnecessary to the analysis. (Appel v. Superior Court (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 329, 342 fn. 6.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5 governs venue for corporate defendants. “A corporation or association may be sued in the county where the contract is made or is to