CARRILLO, FERNANDO, Jr vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC

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