Disputed Claim of BERNAL, ALEXIA

Pleadings and of Nonappearance - CONTINUED to September 22, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

On August 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and of nonappearance. There is no opposition or reply on file.

The motion is procedurally defective. It fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 439, which requires that parties meet and confer "in person, by telephone, or by video conference" before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 439 was the delivery of a written communication sent via email on July 16, 2026, to which Defendant did not respond. (Declaration of Kirean D. McKee, P.P. 1-2.) A communication sent by email is insufficient. The Legislature's specification of the authorized methods for meeting and conferring reflects its belief that more personal forms of communication--beyond written exchanges--are better suited to resolving disputes informally, thereby reducing the burden on both the courts and the parties.

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the hearing to September 22, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. Moving party shall attempt to meet and confer by one of the methods set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 439 by no later than six court days before the hearing. Moving Party to file and serve a declaration no later than five court days before the hearing describing the efforts to meet and confer and any narrowing of the issues.

PR-23-000103 - Disputed Claim of BERNAL, ALEXIA - Petitioner's Motion to Reopen Case - GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court notes that this motion was untimely filed less than 16 court days before the hearing date, that there is no proof of service for the motion, that there is no proper motion itself (only a notice of hearing and supporting memorandum), that Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) cannot be applied because more than six months have passed since the date of the order at issue, and that even if section 473(b) were applicable, there is no attorney declaration of fault or proposed corrective document attached.

With that stated, the Court has reviewed the case file and can see that the minor's date of birth as set forth on the Order to Deposit Funds into Blocked Account does not match the date of birth as recorded in the medical records attached to the underlying minor's compromise petition. Nor does the name on the order fully match. As the former minor has submitted a declaration in support of the motion and therefore consents to the proposed action, and as no one else would be materially affected by this motion, the Court GRANTS the unopposed request to reopen the minor's compromise case for the limited purpose of correcting the identifying information on the Order to Deposit Funds into Blocked Account. Counsel for the former GAL and former minor to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 23***

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department 24:

CV-23-002861 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs SANCHEZ, ROBERTO VIVEROS - Petitioner's Motion to Continue Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1050 - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court is inclined to find that good cause exists to grant the requested continuance based on the planned filing of the moving party's potentially dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment. However, the court requires clarification as to whether notice of this motion has been given to the Peoples's witnesses, if any. (Penal Code Sec. 1050(b) The parties should come prepared to discuss a new trial date.

CV-24-010014 - DUBROVNA, OLHA vs SOUTHWESTERN ADVANTAGE INC - Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Appearance at Deposition and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $6,142.05 - DENIED. The Court finds that the residency limitation in Code of Civil Procedure section 1989 prevents the court from granting Plaintiff's request given that the record demonstrates that Plaintiff currently resides in Poland and did so at the time of service of Defendants' deposition notices. .A trial court's orders regarding the location of