TIMMINS, LACEY vs CLEARCAPITALCOM INC

briefing schedule. The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22: PR-26-000073 - IN THE MATTER OF DONALD & MARY ANN MCBRIDE LIVING TRUST - a) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Respondent - CONTINUED to October 8, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22; b) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner's First Set of Special Interrogatories to Respondent - CONTINUED to October 8, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a-b) The Court has reviewed Petitioner's supplemental declarations filed on August 17, 2026, which substantially narrow the motions. The Court finds the parties have made meaningful progress in narrowing the issues but that further targeted meet-and-confer efforts may resolve some or all of the remaining disputes without the need for formal Court intervention. Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES these motions to October 8, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

No later than September 14, 2026, counsel and the self-represented Petitioner shall meet and confer in person or by videoconference regarding Requests for Production Nos. 4, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, and 19 and Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 24, 25, and 26. Respondent shall advise whether additional responsive documents exist, whether all responsive documents have already been produced, and whether any supplementation can be provided voluntarily. The parties shall file and serve by September 24, 2026, a joint status report, or separate status reports if necessary, identifying which requests remain in dispute and the specific issues remaining for Court determination. The Court reserves ruling on the merits of these motions pending completion of these additional meet-and-confer efforts.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: CV-21-003098 - MARTINEZ, SERGIO vs MALHI, SURJIT SINGH - Plaintiff's Motion to 1. Vacate Judgment as to R Millennium Transport Inc. Only; and 2. Amend Judgment to Reflect Continuing Validity Against Surjit Singh Malhi - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-24-008809 - TIMMINS, LACEY vs CLEARCAPITALCOM INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Rocket Mortgage, LLC and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; b) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Request for Production from Rocket Mortgage, LLC and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; c) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from ClearCapital.com, Inc. and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; d) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Request for Production from ClearCapital.com, Inc. and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; e) Defendant Clear Capital's Motion to Phase Discovery to Address Plaintiff's Standing and Individual Claims First - HEARING REQUIRED; f) Defendant Rocket Mortgage, LLC's Motion to Sequence Discovery - HEARING REQUIRED; a-f) HEARING REQUIRED.

Counsel shall appear to discuss any remaining issues before entry of the Court's order appointing a discovery referee in this matter. With regard to Plaintiffs' claimed financial inability in connection with the referee's fees, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have submitted insufficient evidence on this issue. In addition, based on the discussions between counsel, as reflected in email correspondence submitted by Defendants, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have expressed willingness to share in the fees of their counsel's preferred referee, Judge Morrow, who charges only 5% less than Judge Massullo in this regard. Therefore, the Court intends to enter an order confirming the appointment of Judge Massullo, with the requisite fees to be shared equally between the respective parties to each referred dispute.

CV-26-003818 - ASSALI, JANNETTE vs REED, JAMES - Defendant's Motion to Strike Claims for Punitive Damages from Plaintiff's Complaint - GRANTED, with leave to amend. In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code Sec. 3294 and must include specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious to support the claim. (Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1192-1193.)

Here, the Court notes Plaintiff's inclusion of specific factual allegations regarding the defendants' knowledge of the dog's history of multiple prior attacks, which appear sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages herein. However, Plaintiff has failed to allege the proper statutory elements to seek such damages. Specifically, the Court notes that Plaintiff alleges only that the defendants' conduct was reckless in connection with the subject incident, and recklessness alone is insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. (Taylor v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895.) Plaintiff shall submit her amended pleading within 20 days.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24: CV-22-004359 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs PEREZ, DESTINY - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things as to Alexander Ortiz - GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One - GRANTED, and unopposed; c) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response for Admissions as to Alexander Ortiz - GRANTED, and unopposed.

a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things as to Alexander Ortiz Petitioner has demonstrated that Requests for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things were served upon Real Party in Interest Alexander Ortiz, that the time to respond expired, and that no responses were served. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.300.) Accordingly, the unopposed motion is GRANTED. Within 30 days of service of the signed order, Alexander Ortiz shall serve verified code-compliant responses to the Requests for Inspection, Set One, without objections. Any objections are deemed waived. Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling.

b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One Petitioner has demonstrated that Form Interrogatories, Set One, were served upon Alexander Ortiz, that the time to respond expired, and that no responses were served. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290.) Consequently, the unopposed motion is GRANTED. Within 30 days of service of the signed order, Alexander Ortiz shall serve verified code-compliant responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections. Any objections are deemed waived. Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling.

c) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Request for Admissions as to Alexander Ortiz Petitioner has demonstrated that Requests for Admissions were served upon Alexander Ortiz, that the time to respond expired, and that no responses were served. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280.) As a result, the truth of the matters specified in Petitioner's Requests for Admissions is deemed admitted. Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling. Petitioner is then required to serve a copy of the signed order on Alexander Ortiz.

CV-23-006045 - RHOADS, FINNICK vs MCCANTS, BARBARA - Defendant Barbara Mccants' Motion for