KAUR, SANDEEP vs BAKHSHIYAR, KAMBIZ H

stated that immediately after his injury, he had to partially crawl off the ice; no employees helped him. Then two employees came up to him. He asked for paramedics or a wheelchair. They stated that they did not have either available and instead questioned him regarding the accident. Only after gaining material information from him regarding the accident did they offer to call 911, by which time, Plaintiff had determined that it would be faster to have his mother (who was present at the rink) drive him to the hospital.

Because the separate statement does not adequately refute the issue of failing to provide timely aid, Moving Defendant has failed to meet its initial burden of proof. Even assuming that the foregoing issue has been adequately addressed, there are still triable issues of material fact. (See, e.g., SUF Nos. 11 [Defendant claims no one else fell that day, but Plaintiff states he saw people fall]; SUF No. 13 [dispute over compliance with industry standards].) Defendant stated on reply that it found some of Plaintiff's evidence objectionable.

The Court was unable to locate a set of objections filed at or around the time that the reply was filed. In any case, with regard to the testimony of Plaintiff's expert, it appears that most of the objections go to weight, not admissibility. The Court does not consider the presence or absence of insurance for any purpose. CV-26-006975 - IN RE: PARKSIDE VILLAS MAINTENANCE CORPORATION - Petitioner's Petition to Reduce Required Voting Percentage for Amendment to CC&Rs Pursuant to Civil Code Section 4275 and Corporations Code Section 7515 - HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court has questions relating to service of the petition. The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22: CV-25-005895 - LVNV FUNDING LLC vs FRISBIE, JEFFREY - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to CCP 2033.280 - GRANTED, and unopposed. On August 3, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for order that matters in requests for admission be deemed admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280.

There is no opposition on file. "If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted[.]" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280.) "The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).) On September 30, 2025, Plaintiff propounded 11 requests for admission on Defendant. Defendant did not respond to the requests. Objections are waived. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(a).) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, Plaintiff's unopposed motion is GRANTED. There is no proof of service of the proposed order on file. Moving party to serve and re-submit the proposed order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.) CV-25-010560 - KAUR, SANDEEP vs BAKHSHIYAR, KAMBIZ H - Defendant's Patelco Credit Union's Motion for Leave To file Cross-Complaint Against Plaintiff Sandeep Kaur- GRANTED.

On August 4, 2026, Defendant Patelco Credit Union ("Patelco") submitted a motion for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint against Plaintiff Sandeep Kaur. Plaintiff timely opposed and Patelco timely replied. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50, a court must grant leave to file a compulsory cross’complaint if the moving party "acted in good faith." "A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court. A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result.

Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith." (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94.) Here, the Complaint was filed on October 27, 2025. Defendant Patelco filed its Answer on January 9, 2026. Patelco subsequently discovered facts surrounding Plaintiff's conduct which form the basis for its

cross-complaint. Patelco then filed the instant motion on August 4, 2026. No trial date has been set and the parties have not yet exchanged written discovery. Plaintiff's arguments in opposition fail to demonstrate that Patelco acted in bad faith. Pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50, the motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED. Defendant Patelco is granted leave to file the Cross-Complaint attached as Exhibit C to the August 4, 2026 Declaration of Darrell V. Nguyen, and shall file and serve the Cross-Complaint within ten days of notice of entry of the order.

The proposed order submitted in connection with the motion references Exhibit A instead of Exhibit C and also references appearances by specific attorneys and arguments of counsel, which may not be accurate. Moving party to submit revised proposed order within five court days consistent with this ruling. PR-25-001101 - IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATTHEW - Petitioner's Motion to Compel Initial Responses and Production to Requests for Production, Set Two; 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 motions on calendar that day. The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: CV-24-006834 - GRAYS, WILLIE, Jr vs JAMES, PATRICIA - Plaintiff Willie Grays Jr.'s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint - DENIED. As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff's reply brief exceeds the page limit prescribed by Cal.

Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1113(d). Therefore, the Court has not considered the material contained in the excess pages. While the Court recognizes the liberal judicial policy favoring amendment, the circumstances herein portray a situation where Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is reasonable or necessary. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324.) Given the procedural history of both this action and the underlying medical malpractice action, and specifically Plaintiff's repeated judicial admissions with regard to the date of discovery of his cause of action in the medical case, the Court finds Plaintiff's explanation for the inconsistent allegations in his proposed amended pleading insufficient and can only conclude that the proposed amendment herein is offered for the sole purpose of avoiding an adverse outcome.

Therefore, granting leave to amend would constitute an idle act, as the proposed amended pleading is certain to be disregarded via application of the sham pleading doctrine. (See, e.g. Smyth v. Berman (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 183, 196; American Advertising & Sales Co. v. Mid-Western Transport (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 875, 878-880.) Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated grounds for relief from the binding effect of his multiple judicial admissions herein based on the alleged failures of his attorneys. (See, e.g., Bucur v.

Ahmad (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 175.) CV-22-005423 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs AYALA, CRISTIAN - Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Forfeiture Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 11488.5(b) - DENIED without prejudice. The Court notes that Petitioner failed to serve the instant motion on Mr. Ayala's counsel, and no substitution of attorneys has been submitted. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that proper notice of the instant proceeding was provided. CV-24-004267 - VANN, SOCHENDA vs ALTMAN, ROBERT J, MD - Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Trial [CRC 3.1332] - HEARING REQUIRED.

UD-26-000355 - CHAVEZ FAMILY TRUST vs WRIGHT, SHAUN - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default & Default Judgment - HEARING REQUIRED. The parties and/or their counsel are directed to appear and be prepared to address the issue of the discrepancy in the property address in the 3-Day Notice and the potential actions available to the Court and the parties as a result, given that possession has already been returned to Plaintiff and Defendant concedes that he no longer uses the property for business purposes as of October 2025.