LVNV FUNDING LLC vs MENDIOLA, BERTRAND

CV-25-006057 - MORALES, RENE BERMUDEZ vs VARGAS, MACHUCA EMILIANO - Plaintiff's Motion for Service by Publication - DENIED without prejudice. The declaration is insufficient to determine if other addresses are associated with individual defendants. It asserts that the subject address is "the only address associated with all three defendants," but this does not indicate that other addresses are associated with individual defendants and also does not indicate that other addresses were sought. Plaintiffs have not established that they conducted an appropriate search for Defendants' whereabouts or addresses.

Reasonable diligence "denotes a thorough, systematic investigation and inquiry conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or attorney," such as a number of attempts to learn defendant's whereabouts or address by inquiry and/or investigation of public directories. (Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Ham (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 330, 338.) Due diligence in attempting to serve at the address listed is shown, but the evidence before the Court does not indicate that there are not other known addresses for the defendants, nor what the reasoning behind the conclusion that the defendants reside at the address is.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-26-007399 - LOUREIRO, DAVID J vs KEENSTAR AMERICA INVENSTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction - DENIED without prejudice. There is no proof of service of the motion on file. Nor is there a proof of service of the summons and complaint on file. "No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposing party." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 527.) "A party requesting a preliminary injunction may give notice of the request to the opposing or responding party either by serving a noticed motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 or by obtaining and serving an order to show cause (OSC).

An OSC must be used . . . if the party against whom the preliminary injunction is sought has not appeared in the action. If the responding party has not appeared, the OSC must be served in the same manner as a summons and complaint." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1150.) "[A]ll moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1005.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED without prejudice.

PR-25-001101 - IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATTHEW - Petitioner's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set Two, Admitted; Request for Monetary Sanctions - CONTINUED to September 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. This matter is CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to September 3, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related motion on calendar that day.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:

CV-21-005589 - ROMAN, ERIC vs SUNOPTA GRAINS AND FOODS INC - Plaintiff's Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act - GRANTED, and unopposed. Based on the information provided in the moving papers and supporting evidence, the Court finds the proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and provides for relief that is genuine, meaningful, and consistent with the State's goal of benefitting the public through enforcement of its labor laws. Therefore, the Court approves the settlement and the distribution of the settlement funds, including the amounts allocated to attorney's fees and costs and administration costs, as set forth in the moving papers. (Lab.

Code Sec. 2699(l)(2).) However, the Court notes an error in the proposed order as to the calculation of the 75% allocation of net penalties to the LWDA. By the Court's calculation, the correct amount in that regard should be reflected as $143,501.54. Plaintiff's counsel shall submit a revised form of order reflecting the information herein.

CV-24-006196 - LVNV FUNDING LLC vs MENDIOLA, BERTRAND - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions be Admitted Pursuant to CCP 2033.280 - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-24-006869 - CARRILLO, FERNANDO, Jr vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - a) Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees- CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. b) Defendant General Motors LLC's Motion to Tax Counsel's Memorandum of Costs - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. a-b) CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 30, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. The Court notes that counsel herein has substantial experience with these types of matters and is presumably well-acquainted with the law governing the determination of reasonable fees and expenses pursuant to the statute.

Nevertheless, these types of fee and cost disputes are commonplace and appear to reflect a default pattern of refusing to compromise in favor of "trying their luck" before the court, thus wasting judicial resources in the hopes of obtaining a ruling favoring their side. The Court believes that the potential exists for the parties to informally resolve the issues presented herein if genuine efforts to meet and confer as to such issues are undertaken in good faith. Therefore, the hearing is continued, as above, for that purpose, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or by online video conference to discuss the issues herein.

The parties are further ordered to submit a Joint Status Statement by October 20, 2026, describing their efforts to meet-and-confer and any resolution or narrowing of the issues they were able to achieve. The Court strongly encourages the parties to make genuine efforts to informally resolve their differences with due civility to one another. Should counsel for the parties be unable to reach a reasonable compromise of any of the issues presented by the instant motion, the Court may require personal appearances at the time of the continued hearing to further address the issues herein.

CV-26-001740 - ESPINOZA, FELIX ANTONIO SIFONTES vs NORCAL CHICKEN INC - Defendant Nor-Cal Chicken, INC.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Strike Class Claims - GRANTED. The Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated the existence of an agreement to arbitrate which encompasses the claims at issue herein. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1281.2.) Further, the Court further finds that the subject agreement contains a valid delegation clause granting the arbitrator the exclusive authority to determine the issues of interpretation, applicability, and enforcement, which encompasses the unconscionability arguments raised by Plaintiff herein.(Aanderud v.

Superior Court (Vivint Solar Developer, LLC) (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880.) With regard to Plaintiff's challenge to the delegation clause, the Court finds that he has demonstrated, at most, a slight degree of procedural unconscionability attendant with the manner in which the onboarding process was presented by the employer. However, the Court finds no substantive unconscionability in connection with the delegation clause herein. Therefore, Plaintiff's challenge fails, and all remaining issues raised in the papers herein shall be submitted to the arbitrator.

All remaining proceedings are stayed pending completion of the arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1281.4.)

CV-26-001848 - ADVANCED RADIOLOGY AND INTERVENTIONAL ASSOCIATES INC vs EOH ACQUISITION GROUP LLC - Defendant's Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss or Stay for Forum Non-Conveniens - GRANTED. Although Plaintiff has presented evidence that Care Well transmitted radiology studies to ARIA, directed payments and communications to California, and maintained a contractual relationship with a California corporation, the controlling authorities establish that these factors are not sufficient to establish Defendant's purposeful availment of the subject forum for purposes of specific jurisdiction. (Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court