Motion to Compel Arbitration; Case Management Conference
103 2025-01534663 1. Application/Request 2. Case Management Conference Beyene vs. Pavia Ilana Linder’s application for pro hac vice admission to represent Specially Appearing Defendant Sigma Pi Fraternity International, Inc. in this action is granted.
The case management conference is continued to June 15, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department C27.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
104 2025-01509518 1. Motion to Compel Arbitration 2. Case Management Conference Pate vs. Tesla, Inc. The motion by Defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Defendant”) for an order compelling Plaintiff Cawana Pate (“Plaintiff”) to arbitrate their claims in accordance with Plaintiff’s arbitration agreement with Tesla and staying this action pending the outcome of the arbitration is granted.
The case management conference is vacated.
The Court sets a hearing regarding the status of arbitration for July 12, 2027 at 10:00 a.m. in Department C27.
Defendant is ordered to give notice.
105 2025-01530454 1. Demurrer to Complaint 2. Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint Peloquin vs.
3. Case Management Conference Neighborhood Suites, LLC The demurrer of defendant Oasis Haven Hospice, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Hospice”) to the complaint of plaintiffs Shirley Peloquin, by and through her successor in interest Jennifer Jackson, Jennifer Jackson, an individual, Ernest A. Peloquin II, an individual, Kelly Latislaw, an individual, and Phoebe Palmer, an individual is sustained in part and overruled in part. [ROA ## 27, 2] The demurrer is sustained with 15 days leave to amend as to the second cause of action; it is overruled as to the third cause of action.
Defendant’s motion to strike is granted with 15 days leave to amend.
Facts As alleged by Plaintiffs, their decedent, who was over 65, was admitted to defendant Neighborhood Suites, LLC (the “Facility”), a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (“RCFE”), on 3/9/24 with advanced dementia. Although she was able to feed herself, she was unable to care for her other activities of daily living. [Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 7 and 27.]
Plaintiffs’ decedent was noted to be nonambulatory and thus in need of assistance and supervision, as well as monitoring at night. [Id., ¶ 28.] On 9/5/24, Plaintiffs’ decedent was seen by a physician who noted she had significant mobility issues due to having a right
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”