Rosie Lopez v. Vanessa Brenda Jaquez, et al.

explains that the immediately adjacent chaparral vegetation is no longer undisturbed due to the fire damage. But the injunction uses "undisturbed chaparral vegetation in the surrounding area" as the relevant comparison. Even if some vegetation became disturbed by the fire, other undisturbed vegetation in the surrounding area would remain. Thus, Defendant's second requested modification is also unwarranted.

Finally, Defendant argues that the ends of justice require modification of the injunction because the resources of the trust are insufficient to fund compliance costs for a property which produces no income. The Court does not find that the ends of justice require modification or dissolution: the hardship imposed on the trust arises out of the violations prior parties were adjudicated to have committed. Defendant does not present further separate arguments in support of her other requested modifications to the injunction.

Moreover, the Court believes that the interests of justice would be served by the parties following the direction of the Injunction and trying to work together as contemplated to arrive at a negotiated approach to compliance with the Injunction. No effort has been made in that regard. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is denied. C.

Conclusion

The Court denies the motion.

The Court tenders the following tentative decision in the matter Rosie Lopez v. Vanessa Brenda Jaquez, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 24STCV26305, set for hearing on September 11, 2026. Vanessa Brenda Jaquez and Susie Lulu Zorrilla Jaimes (collectively, Defendants) move for the Court to provide notice of the appraised fair market value of the property located at 611, 629, 629 1/2, 635 W 8th St, Pomona, CA 91766 (the Property). Rosie Lopez (Plaintiff) has not filed an opposition to the motion.

Defendants' motion is granted. Tenants in common may bring an action to partition real property owned by all. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 874.311, et seq.) In such cases, the Court shall determine the fair market value of the property by ordering an appraisal through the appointment of a disinterested real estate developer. (Id., Sec. 874.316, subds. (a), (d).)

If an appraisal is conducted in such a way, not later than 10 days after the appraisal is filed the Court shall send notice to each party with a known address stating: "(1) The appraised fair market value of the property. (2) That the appraisal is available at the court clerk's office. (3) That a party may file with the court an objection to the appraisal not later than 30 days after the notice is sent, stating the grounds for the objection." (Id., Sec. 374.316, subd. (e).)

Here, Defendants filed the appraisal with the Court on July 2, 2026. (Resnick Decl. P. 4, Ex. 3.) Thus, the Court must issue notice of the appraisal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 374.316, subdivision (e). Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' motion.

Case Number: 26STCV04803 Hearing Date: September 11, 2026 Dept: 400 MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

The Court tenders the following tentative decision in the matter Havilah Tillmon v. Jesus Sotelo, Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 26STCV04803, set for hearing on September 11, 2026. Havilah