TD BANK, N.A. v. SAMUDIO

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES

Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

No. 24CV03139

TD BANK, N.A. v. SAMUDIO

(UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

The motion is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff served the motion on the party, not her counsel (plaintiff was self-represented until April 16, 2026).

No. 26CV00475

LARSSON v. ESCHEN

(UNOPPOSED) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

The unopposed motion is continued to October 2, 2026. This motion was set for the same hearing day as defendant’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, no. 17.1. Plaintiff timely opposed that motion, but defendant took it off calendar. Plaintiff did not file any opposition to this motion, and did not reference it in her case management conference statement (she referenced the other now vacated motion). Considering plaintiff’s previous timely responses in this action, it appears plaintiff may not be aware this motion is on calendar.

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion is due no later than nine court days before the new hearing date.