Orange County Sanitation District vs. Jackson

No later than five days from the hearing, Plaintiff shall separately file the proposed FAC, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Garcia Declaration.

The FAC is deemed served as to Defendants VALLEY POST- ACUTE AND REHAB, LLC and VPR OPS, LLC as of the date of the 8/28/26 hearing. These Defendants shall have 30 days to respond to the FAC.

Plaintiff SHALL serve the FAC on Defendant SEQUOIA HEALTH CARE LLC (“Sequoia”) within 10 days. Sequoia was previously defaulted on the original Complaint on 5/8/26. The default is of no moment once the FAC is filed.

Plaintiff to give notice.

7 Orange County Motion to Bifurcate Trial (ROA 344) Sanitation District vs. Jackson The court DENIES the motion to bifurcate filed by Defendants DONALD A. ISKIERKA, VIRGINIA L. ISKIERKA, PHILIP J. RIZZO, ANDREA L. RIZZO, HOOMAN K SHAHIDI, NAZANIN GHAFFARIZADEH, BEVERLY K. UERLING, DEREK J. UERLING, MARK GERSON, MYRA GERSON, OLEG VOLF, YANINA GINZBERG, DEAN E. WEST, DEBORA A. WEST, FRANCIS LA PLACA, GAETANO LA PLACA, SHERI LA PLACA, KOZO TERAJIMA, FRANK H. CLARKE III, GERARD F. MCCABE, CATHERINE F. MCCABE, and HELEN J. LOWELL.

Defendants request an order phasing the trial such that the claims of Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (the “District”) against certain defendants with “limited improvements” (versus “major permanent improvements”) would be tried first. Defendants appear to define “limited improvements” as those “without pools or major permanent improvements allegedly within the easement area.” (Mov. Pts. & Auth. at p. 2, lines 9-10.) Defendants define “major permanent improvements” to include “pools, sheds, hardscape, or the like over the easement area.” (Mov. Pts. & Auth. at p. 5, line 14.) Of the 12 properties at issue, six apparently fall under the “limited improvements” category

and the other six fall under the “major permanent improvements” category. (Mov. Pts. & Auth. at p. 5, lines 10-17; citing to Defendants’ response to separate statement, ROA 319.)

Defendants fail to show that the requested bifurcation would promote judicial economy or avoid jury confusion. A determination of whether a fence on one property will not necessarily eliminate a determination of whether a pool, shed, tree, wall, or fence on another property interferes with the District’s easement rights. Defendants contend that the District lumps all the 12 properties together to create jury confusion. As the properties will be identified by address and owner, it is not evident that the jury will be confused at trial.

Plaintiff to give notice.

8 Jaloudi vs. Medi- Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment Syn, Inc. Motion for Entry of Judgment

1. Motion to Set Aside Default

The court GRANTS Defendant MEDI-SYN, INC.’s motion to set aside default pursuant to Section 473(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Defendant answered the original complaint but did not timely answer the Second Amended Complaint. At Plaintiff ANGELICA JALOUDI’s request thereafter, default was entered on 4/15/26. Soon thereafter, Defendant timely filed the instant motion on 6/3/26, on the grounds that default was entered because of defense counsel’s mistake and surprise.

Section 473(b) permits a court to grant relief from a judgment, dismissal, order or other proceeding taken against a party on the grounds of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) Generally, mandatory relief exists upon a showing by an attorney declaration of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or

5