Delatorre v. Smith

The Court finds good cause to grant the relief requested. Accordingly, the application is GRANTED. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.40.)

Mr. Aaron is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

3. Delatorre v. Smith 25-1498067 (Notice of Conditional Settlement filed) 4. Enriquez v. Avila 26-1554734 (off calendar) 5. Andresen v. Watermeier Before the court are unopposed 1) and 2) motions to compel plaintiff Christina Compani’s initial responses to sets one of special interrogatories and requests for production, and 3) a motion to deem requests for admission set one as admitted, filed by pro per defendant David Watermeier (“Defendant”). The unopposed motions are each DENIED without prejudice.

The proofs of service filed with the motions indicates electronic service, however they fail to include the required name and electronic service address of the person(s) served. (Civ. Proc. Code § 1013b(b)(3).) As the proofs of service are improper and do not show service of the motions on all the parties who have made appearances in this action, the motions are denied without prejudice to Defendant refiling and properly serving the other parties in this action.

The court also notes Defendant failed to include the underlying discovery requests with the motions along with proofs of service of the requests properly being served on Watermeier.

Defendant to give notice.

6. Millen v. General Motors LLC 26-1554736 (off calendar) 7. Rodriguez v. Summergreen Homeowners Association 24-1378892 (Moot) 8. Crossroads Equipment Lease and Finance, LLC v. Trophy Transport and Towing 25-1464116 (Moot) 9. Madar v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals 23-1348123 Before the court is a motion for summary adjudication filed by defendant Bartlett Care Center, LLC dba French Park Care Center (Bartlett or French Park) and a motion for summary judgment, or summary adjudication in the alternative, filed by defendant Sun Mar Management Services (Sun Mar) on the complaint of plaintiffs Gavril Madar (Decedent), by and through his successor in interest, Sefora Madar, Sefora Madar, and Mary Madar (Plaintiffs). For the reasons set forth below, the motions are DENIED.

Bartlett Motion for Summary Adjudication

The new evidence submitted for the first time with the reply was not considered. (ROA 188; Code of Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (b)(4).)