Balouch, et al, v. Chowdhury, et al

14. Balouch, et al, v. Chowdhury, et al, CIVSB2431410 Gomez Law’s Motion to be Relieved as Attorney for Defendant Zumaran 5/26/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

The Court would GRANT this unopposed motion relating to representation of Defendant Zumaran. The motion is supported by a declaration establishing good cause and the breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. (Gomez Decl.) The Court would also order the at-issue Plaintiff to appear before the Court at the next OSC re representation (to be scheduled) and inform the Court about the status of her representation and defense of the case. The relief is not effective until service of the ruling has been effectuated and that proof of service has been filed.

*** *** ***

15. Baker, et al, v. Chaffey Joint Union HSD., et al, Case No. CIVSB2128630 (CIVSB2134233) Def. District’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication (Baker) Def. District’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication (ML) 5/26/26, 8:30 a.m., Dept. S-17

The Court notes in this matter that a Motion for Class Certification is still pending. While tentative analysis is provided, the Court plans to take arguments under consideration and issue a final ruling1 after either the denial or granting of the certification motion with the opt-out period having been expired Tentative Rulings As to Requests for Judicial Notice: Within its replies, the District requested notice of the Government Claims filed by Plaintiffs Baker, Doe, and (former plaintiff) GS.

The Court would DENY as it is improper to rely on new evidence and argument within a reply. As to Objections: The District filed evidentiary objections to Baker/ Doe’s evidence (1) Linder Decl., at ¶5, Exh. D; (2) Linder Decl., at ¶6, Exh. E; and (3) Linder Decl., at ¶11, Exh. J. The objections argue irrelevant, hearsay, improper legal conclusions, and not filed under penalty of perjury. The Court would OVERRULE, as Plaintiffs cured the failure to sign under penalty of perjury with their supplemental filing.

1 The MSJ seeks to adjudicate the class claims, but no ruling can be binding on a class until it is certified and the optout period expires. Thus, while the Court addresses its analysis and tentative, it is inclined to take arguments under submission and issue a final ruling following resolution of the class certification issue.

2