THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER AIDEN GARCIA, et al. vs LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Moreover, the trial setting conference is calendared on the same date as the hearing for the instant motion. Therefore, no trial date has been set.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that this motion is a result of Defendants' lack of diligence. Plaintiffs emphasize that unlike Plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery, Defendants do not contend that Plaintiffs concealed information from them, prevented them from conducting discovery, or refused to comply with any discovery requests propounded by Defendants. Rather, Defendants acknowledge that no such discovery was ever pursued. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants seek to conduct, for the first time, the full range of discovery that was available to them for approximately 19 months. Thus, the reopening of discovery is not limited.

The Court will exercise its discretion to reopen limited discovery because Defendants' lack of diligence is attributable to Defendants' prior counsel. The Court finds the necessity of discovery weighs in favor of Defendants conducting affirmative discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.010.) Moreover, the lack of diligence is mitigated by the fact that trial has not yet been set in this case. Therefore, reopening limited discovery would not be so prejudicial as to disrupt trial preparation. There is minimal risk that conducting basic affirmative discovery would divert resources and create new disputes on the eve of trial.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED with the following limitations: 1. Discovery is reopened for 100 days from the date of the order; 2. Defendants may propound one set of Requests for Production not to exceed twenty-five requests; one set of Special Interrogatories not to exceed twenty-five interrogatories, one set of Form Interrogatories not to exceed twenty interrogatories; one set of requests for admissions not to exceed twenty requests, propounded to each Plaintiff; 3. Defendants may depose Mario Scaturchio, Joseph Scaturchio, and DynaPro's person most qualified, each limited to seven hours under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.290; 4. Expert discovery shall proceed only on the statutory schedule once a trial date is set, with no separate reopening sought.

Case Number: 25NWCV01176 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: C THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER AIDEN GARCIA, et al. vs LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No. 25NWCV01176

Plaintiffs are family members of Decedent Christopher Garcia who played on the South East Senior High School Junior Varsity Football team. On August 23, 2024, Plaintiffs watched as Garcia tackled an opponent at the visitor's sideline of the 20-yard-line. Garcia was critically injured and later died as a result of his injuries. Plaintiffs sue Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District for Wrongful Death - Dangerous Condition of Public Property, among other causes of action.

Here, Plaintiffs apply ex parte for an order permitting their experts to test the football field "to determine field hardness and mechanical properties of the root zone soil and playing surface." (Henderson Decl., Ex. 3, Meet and Confer Correspondence.) Defendant seeks to limit testing to the immediate area where the incident occurred as opposed to the entire football field. Defendant argues that the condition of the field outside of this immediate area is irrelevant and will not reflect the condition of the field as it existed two years ago when the incident took place. Defendant is also concerned that the experts are biased and may declare the field "unsafe," which could impair the current use of the field.

While the testing methodology is not entirely clear to the Court, it is well-settled that the scope of discovery is broad. Defendant's objections go to the weight of the testing, not its admissibility. Furthermore, any prejudice to Defendant resulting from disclosure of the expert findings may be cured with a protective order. Thus, the ex parte application is GRANTED. Plaintiff's experts may perform non-destructive testing of the entire football field, including the sidelines, subject to a protective order if one is requested by Defendant. Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 26NWCV01310 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: C AUTO FINANCE SOLUTIONS, LLC. vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al. CASE NO.: 26NWCV01310 HEARING: 8/26/26 @ 9:30 AM #14 TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A's Demurrer is OVERRULED in part and SUSTAINED in part with 20 days leave to amend, as set forth below. Defendant's Motion to Strike is GRANTED with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff to give NOTICE. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A (Wells Fargo) generally demurs to Plaintiff AUTO FINANCE SOLUTIONS, LLC.'s (AFS) First Amended Complaint (FAC) as to the first through eighth causes of action for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action pursuant to sections 430.10(e) and 430.10(f) of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

Background

In the operative FAC filed on May 7, 2026, AFS alleges that it is a secured inventory lender engaged in the business of financing motor-vehicle inventory for automobile dealerships, commonly known as floorplan financing. Wells Fargo was engaged in the business of motor-vehicle retail financing, by directly