Unknown

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. I) September 4, 2026 DEPARTMENT I LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

FSC materials were previously submitted and the court assumes that they are still valid. The court will discuss the trial with the parties. While the court can likely begin the trial on September 14, 2026, the court does not think it can finish the trial before the court is dark at week's end. The court will discuss whether the best option is to re-set the trial for immediately upon the court's return in October or set a new trial date. There is also a possibility that another department can take the case on September 14, and the court will discuss that with the parties as well. In any event, assuming that the case has not settled and that the prior FSC materials remain valid, the case does appear ready for trial.

Case Number: 21SMCV01145 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: I

The matter is here really for the motion for terminating sanctions. Defendants stated that if necessary, they would "swap" the five discovery motions set for today to get that heard. If the court has time, it can get to the motions to compel further. In general though, the court would hope that the parties would discuss the discovery issues further now that plaintiff has new counsel (assuming the case survives this motion). As to the motion for terminating sanctions, the court issued a detailed tentative at the last hearing, so we can start from there.

Case Number: 23SMCV01419 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: I

The matter is here for an FSC. The court has received the following FSC materials: (1) Plaintiff's Special Verdict; (2) Defendant's Special Verdict; (3) Joint Witness List; (4) Joint Exhibit List; (5) Joint Jury Instructions; (6) Plaintiff's Proposed Jury Instructions; (7) Defendant's Proposed Jury Instructions; (8) Joint Short Statement of the case.

The court still needs: (1) Joint Deposition Chart (if depositions are to be used other than for impeachment); (2) Joint Statement of Unusual Issues (if any); (3) Joint Good Faith Trial Length Estimate. This can be readily provided by next Wednesday, one would think. Other than that, the court believes that the case is READY FOR TRIAL.

The court has also received eight motions in limine by the defense to which there is no opposition. The court can rule on those if the case is about to try. The court will ask the parties to meet and confer further on the special verdict forms and to present the court with a red-line comparing one version to the other to the extent the parties cannot come to terms. The parties should also discuss additional stipulations to exhibits.

The court does have a problem, though. The court cannot start the trial on September 11, but it may be able to start the trial on September 14. The court will, however, need a good and firm estimate on the length. The court will be dark starting September 21, so if the case is not in the jury's hands by week's end (likely meaning Thursday) then the court would need to declare a mistrial. If the parties are confident that they can meet that deadline, the court is prepared to go forward. If not, the court will discuss the matter further with the parties. The court might also be able to see if there is another department in Santa Monica that can hear the case on September 14, and the court will discuss that with the parties as well. The court will defer ruling on the in limine motions until after the above discussion.

Case Number: 24SMCV04692 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: I

Plaintiff seeks a stay. Plaintiff asserts that there is another case--originally filed back in 2016--that is intertwined with this one. The cases were earlier related, but after plaintiff filed a 170.6 against the other judge, Department 1 unrelated the cases. The other case has gone to trial and is now on appeal. According to plaintiff, many of the issues raised here are at issue there. Specifically, plaintiffs here claim conversion based on defendant's cashing of old checks for rent that plaintiffs assert was no longer due or truly owing. The jury apparently went the other way in the other case.

The court agrees that it makes sense to allow the appeal to run its course. That decision might moot this case, or it might at least moot out some issues. Any rulings there would likely be res judicata or collateral estoppel here once final. Therefore, the court will VACATE THE FSC AND TRIAL DATES. The court will set a status conference for a time after the appeal ought to be over. However, this is not a stay. All other deadlines remain in place, and discovery is not stayed absent stipulation of the parties approved by the court or motion.

Case Number: 24SMCV05129 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: I

This is a motion to compel further brought by cross complainant Gilinski against defendant Kenig. The response by Kenig is essentially that everything that was a problem has since been rectified and the motion is essentially moot. The court will inquire as to the production. If it is now complete, that is something and moots out that part of the motion.

The court agrees with the moving party as to "if any." That is not an appropriate qualifier. If there are no responsive documents, then a statement under 2031.230 is required. If some documents can be produced but others cannot, then a statement of compliance is required as well as a statement under 2031.230. If all responsive documents are being produced, then "if any" has no meaning. However, the court puts little weight on this if the statement is made on the theory that in the time available the responding party has not completed the search for documents and plans to supplement with a 2031.230 statement (verified) if appropriate. "Available from others" is