Diamond Peo, LLC vs. Kamran Staffing, Inc.

to arbitrate its claims when the causes of action against the nonsignatory are ‘intimately founded in and intertwined’ with the underlying contract obligations.” (DMS Services, LLC v. Superior Court (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th at 1346, 1354.) Here, Plaintiff’s claims against moving Defendant and Maruchan, Inc. are intertwined because Plaintiff alleges she was concurrently employed by both Defendants. Moreover, the language of the agreement encompasses Defendant’s agents and affiliates.

The case is STAYED pending arbitration.

Arbitration Status Review set for 5/27/2027 at 1:30 PM. The parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report 5 days prior.

Clerk to give notice.

7 Diamond Peo, Motion to Amend Judgment LLC vs. Kamran Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Diamond PEO, LLC’s motion Staffing, Inc. for an order amending the judgment entered on September 30-2022- 5, 2024, to add Antonio Enciso, an individual, and Azul 01247086-CU- Staffing Group, LLC, a California limited liability company, BC-CJC as additional judgment debtors is DENIED.

There is no evidence the proposed additional judgment debtors, Antonio Enciso and Azul Staffing Group, LLC, were served with the moving papers. Due process requires the proposed additional debtors be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Clerk to give notice. 8 Chao vs. Chao Motion for Confirmation of Sale of Real Property 30-2024- 01416045-CU- Partition Referee Matthew L. Taylor’s motion for OR-CJC confirmation of sale of real property is GRANTED.

Standard on Motion to Confirm Partition Sale

The purchaser, partition referee, or any party may move to confirm or set aside a partition sale. (Code Civ. Proc., § 873.720, subd. (a).) The moving party must give no less than 10 days’ notice of motion to the purchaser and all other parties who have appeared in the action. (Id., § 873.720, subd. (b)(1)-(2).)

“At the hearing, the court shall examine the report and witnesses in relation to the report.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 873.730, subd. (a).) “The court may confirm the sale notwithstanding a variance from the prescribed terms of sale if to do so will be beneficial to the parties and will not result in substantial prejudice to persons interested in the