DIAMOND, KAREN vs AMERICOLD LOGISTICS LLC

CV-25-008681 - CEDARBROOK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION vs WALZ, MONTE RICHARD - Plaintiff's Application for Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt - GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and unopposed.

On July 31, 2026, Plaintiff filed an application for order to show cause why Defendant should not be held in contempt of the Court's March 19, 2026 Default Judgment ("Default Judgment"). There is no opposition on file.

The Default Judgment ordered Defendant to provide Plaintiff reasonable access to Defendant's condominium unit for the purpose of inspecting, restoring, and completing all necessary repairs to the fire alarm system. Defendant was ordered to coordinate with Plaintiff to provide access dates and times within five calendar days. Defendant has not done so.

Plaintiff served the Default Judgment on Defendant by mail on March 19, 2026. On July 22, 2026, Plaintiff mailed a letter to Defendant requesting that Defendant make the unit available on certain days. Plaintiff also contacted Defendant via email. Defendant did not respond or otherwise comply with the Court's order.

Accordingly, the application is GRANTED in part. The Court finds sufficient grounds to institute contempt proceedings and SETS for October 27, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22 an Order to Show Cause directing Monte Richard Walz to appear and show cause, if any exists, why he should not be adjudged in contempt for violation of the Court's order to provide Plaintiff reasonable access to the condominium unit. (See Crawford v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.”(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 156, 159, reh'g denied and opinion modified (July 12, 1989).)

The application is DENIED in part as to the attorneys' fees award. Civil money judgments are enforceable through a writ of execution, not contempt. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 699.510.)

The Court expresses no opinion regarding whether contempt ultimately will be established. The ruling is limited to whether Plaintiff has shown sufficient grounds for issuance of an OSC.

Plaintiff must file a proof of service at least five court days before the OSC date showing personal service of the signed order on the alleged contemnor no later than 16 court days before the hearing date. Defendant may file and serve a written opposition to the Order to Show Cause no later than nine court days before the OSC date. If an opposition is filed, Plaintiff may file and serve a reply brief no later than five court days before the OSC date. Plaintiff is directed to submit a new 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:

CV-24-000957 - ALICEAROMERO, EVELYN vs DENIZ BROS AG SERVICES INC - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court notes that counsel's declaration appears to demonstrate insufficient efforts to confirm the client's current address. In addition, the Court has questions with regard to the intended scope of the instant motion, which appears to be reference only Ms. Alicea-Romero's representation, and the status of Ms. Castro's claim. Counsel shall appear at the hearing prepared to discuss the above-referenced issues with the Court.

CV-24-003258 - ROSE, NORMA MAE vs CITY OF OAKDALE - Defendant City of Oakdale's Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 16, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. The Court requires more time to review this matter.

CV-24-005034 - DIAMOND, KAREN vs AMERICOLD LOGISTICS LLC - Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside and Vacate the Judgment Entered in Favor of Americold Logistics Pursuant to CCP 663 or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial - DENIED. Plaintiff's motion is not proper under Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 663, as it fails to seek entry of a "new and different judgment," as envisioned by that statute, and instead seeks to vacate the entry of judgment and return the case for trial. (See, e.g. Forman v. Knapp Press (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 200, 203-203.)

With regard to Plaintiff's alternative request for a new trial, after revisiting the parties' arguments and proffered evidence in connection with the motion for summary judgment in conjunction with the issues raised by Plaintiff herein, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for relief under Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 657. As to Plaintiff's argument based on UMFs 7, 10, 11, and 12, these merely restated Plaintiff's allegations in the case, which are insufficient to create a material factual dispute on summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(p)(2).)

In addition, Plaintiff's particular allegations regarding Defendant's post-incident liability appear to have been negated by the evidence in support of UMF 13, which was undisputed by Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court again concludes that Defendant met its initial burden on summary judgment herein.

The Court further concludes that the defense's evidentiary objections and opposition to Plaintiff's request for judicial notice were well-taken, and its rulings sustaining the objections and denying judicial notice are supported by the law. In reviewing this issue, however, the Court notes that it inadvertently failed to enter an order identifying the specific grounds for its rulings in this regard. Therefore, the Court will sign the defense's proposed order on objections, nunc pro tunc to the date of its ruling on the motion for summary judgment (6-16-26).

CV-25-004732 - SECREASE, TAKETHIA vs WENDYS OF THE PACIFIC INC - Defendant Wendy's of the Pacific Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiff, Takethia Secrease's Complaint - DENIED.

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Defendant's Separate Statement identifies only one issue for determination; therefore, it appears that grounds for summary adjudication have not been asserted herein.

With regard to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, met the initial burden of establishing prima facie entitlement to judgment based on the submitted evidence. The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to produce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.437c(p)(2).)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met her burden in this regard and has demonstrated the existence of material factual disputes, at a minimum, with regard to UMF 11, 24, 25, 26, and 27 and Plaintiff's additional facts.

In addition, the Court declines to disregard the challenged factual assertions contained in Plaintiff's supporting declaration in accordance with Defendant's argument that these exceed the scope of the pleadings herein on the grounds. Pleadings are liberally construed (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 452), and the challenged factual assertions herein merely elaborate on Plaintiff's claim involving the same fundamental instrumentality identified in the pleadings, i.e., the accumulation of liquid on the floor of the restaurant. (See, e.g. Blair v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 221, 226.)

Lastly, the Court notes that Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's evidence are not submitted in the format required by Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1354; therefore, the Court declines to rule on them. (Hodjat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1.)

CV-25-011555 - CERVERA, CECILIA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC - a) Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera's Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One and Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

b) Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera's Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One and Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

c) Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

d) Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera's Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-d) In view of Plaintiff's counsel's withdrawal from her representation, these matters are CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23. Defense counsel shall make genuine efforts to meet and confer with Plaintiff, in pro per, with regard to the issues presented herein and shall file a supplemental declaration describing such efforts and the results no later than 5 court days before the continued hearing.

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

CV-24-000245 - CUMIS INSURANCE SOCIETY INC vs EDMONSONESCOLAR, DEBRA - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment - DENIED, without prejudice.