LABOR COMMISSIONER V PURE CARE

(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. T) September 4, 2026 DEPARTMENT T LAW AND MOTION RULINGS If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

23VECV01145 SONKEY V EYENGA [TENTATIVE] ORDER: Specially Appearing Defendants Anastasie Brenda Biya Eyenga and Marie Therese Yabits' Motion to Set Aside Default is CONTINUED to October 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. Specially Appearing Defendants Anastasie Brenda Biya Eyenga and Marie Therese Yabits' Request for Judicial Notice is CONTINUED. As to the July 24, 2026, Minute Order, the Court strikes, nunc pro tunc, the reference to a "Motion to Strike" as being a proper responsive pleading.

Introduction

Defendants Anastasie Brenda Biya Eyenga and Marie Therese Yabits (collectively, Defendants) moved to set aside the entry of default status dated, March 23, 2026. Plaintiff Reprudentia Sonkey (Plaintiff) did not file an opposition as noted by Defendants in their Notice of Non-Opposition (filed on July 23, 2026.)

Procedure

This matter was originally heard and reviewed on July 24, 2026, wherein the Court continued the matter to this date to provide Defendants with an opportunity to submit a responsive pleading (i.e., a Proposed Answer or Proposed Demurrer). The July 24, 2026, Minute Order further provided that the declaration with proposed responsive pleading was due by August 12, 2026. Any Supplemental Opposition to the declaration was due by August 26, 2026. Any Supplemental Reply was due by September 2, 2026. The parties did not file the proposed responsive pleading and did not file any supplemental briefing.

Instead of any of the above proposed pleadings or supplemental briefs, Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 3, 2026, which is scheduled for September 29, 2026. The Motion for Reconsideration places into issue the Court's Order requesting Defendants to submit a proposed responsive pleading. Because Defendants placed into issue the portion of the Court's July 24, 2026, Order that is to be reviewed today, the Court CONTINUES the instant matter to September 29, 2026.

The Court further noted that the July 24, 2026, Minute Order mistakenly included a "Motion to Strike" as a manner of acceptable response. However, a Motion to Strike is not considered a pleading and would not be a proper proposed responsive pleading, as required by Code of Civil Procedure, section 473(b). The Court enters a nunc pro tunc order correcting the July 24, 2026, Minute Order and strikes out the reference to a Motion to Strike.

BECAUSE THE COURT IS CONTINUING THE MOTION, IT WILL HEAR NO ARGUMENTS ON THE MERITS OF THE MOTION.

Case Number: 24VECV00603 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: T 24VECV00603 SALEH V FARNAD

Ex parte application to continue the trial: It depends. First, the court will not continue a trial based on conflicts with other trials. Concerning this expert, there is no guarantee that this expert will be able to testify in 7 months. Ordinarily, if an expert is sick or dies, counsel will seek to replace the expert. Is this fair to the client who has been waiting 2 years and 9 months for trial to make her wait another 6 months? The court notes there is another DDS on the expert list for plaintiff. Finally, the court has already given plaintiff a 5 month trial continuance in July.

Case Number: 24VECV03033 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: T 24VECV03033 LABOR COMMISSIONER V PURE CARE

Upon review and consideration of Plaintiff Labor Commissioner's Motion to Compel Defendant Garry Itkins' Responses to Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents, and good cause appearing: IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.300(b):

1. Plaintiff Labor Commissioner's Motion is GRANTED;

2. Defendant is ordered to provide, within 15 calendar days of the date of this Court's ruling on the Motion, responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Labor Commissioner's Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 1-25, attached to Plaintiff's moving papers as Exhibit D. The court will sign the proposed order.

Case Number: 24VECV04425 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: T 24VECV04425 Aranda v City of Los Angeles

The motion by the City of LA to bifurcate the trial is denied on the grounds that it would not significantly shorten the trial, would require multiple experts to testify twice, and would cause undue prejudice to plaintiff. There are opinions concerning the medical condition which are intertwined with the issues of liability. The court agrees with the opposition that "the jury cannot determine whether officers' failure to obtain timely medical care caused Plaintiff's injury without hearing evidence concerning the progression of his stroke, what timely treatment could have prevented, and what injuries resulted as the stroke progressed."

The court agrees, also, that "bifurcation in this case would fail to preserve the Court's time and resources. If the jury finds in favor of Plaintiff in a bifurcated liability phase, the parties will need to present second opening, closing, and rebuttal arguments on the issue of damages. Much of the medical testimony Defendant characterizes as damages evidence will be necessary during the liability phase. This would require multiple witnesses to testify in both phases of trial, including expert witnesses, the involved officers, and Plaintiff. The Court would also have to present a second set of jury instructions and the jury would have to deliberate a second time. This is not a complex case requiring months of testimony."

It also would make it confusing to the jury about how much time the trial will take, and make it more difficult to select jurors for a longer, maybe even double in length, trial. While the City focuses on the possible time that would be saved, it does not address the potential problems for the experts, counsel, the court, and the jury in having two trials.

Case Number: 25VECV02943 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: T 25VECV02943 Rodriguez v Honda

This is a continuance of a motion in which the court allowed plaintiff to produce his declaration. He has and it does not comply with the order. He did not explaining the entirety of his schedule for the next 30 days, and when did he advise plaintiff's counsel of his availability or lack thereof, as well as a declaration from him and counsel as to why he was not produced for deposition, and why he cannot be produced for deposition wherever he happens to be now.

"T he court will advance the hearing on the motion to continue. Be advised that if this motion is heard, the court will require a declaration from Mr. Bounds explaining the entirety of his schedule for the next 30 days, and when did he advise plaintiff's counsel of his availability or lack thereof, as well as a declaration from him and counsel as to why he was not produced for deposition, and why he cannot be produced for deposition wherever he happens to be now. Without a declaration setting forth these matters, the case will not be continued."

Who did the plaintiff designate as an expert. Many times they designate more than once. If this expert is not available, pick someone else and ask the court for relief. Lemon Law cases are not special and they need to follow the rules just like everyone else, Find other experts rather than same people over and over again.

Case Number: 25VECV03178 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: T 5VECV03178 Cohen & Marzban v Udewitz

This is the second request by defendant to extend the time for this demurrer. It was already continued for one month. Now, defendant wants 3 more months. The court previously denied the request to extend all deadlines by 90 days but allowed defendant to seek additional time as needed. The demurrer and motion to strike were served on in this matter on 7/24/2026 which is 6 weeks ago. The court