LVNV FUNDING LLC vs FRISBIE, JEFFREY

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