Corelogic, Inc. vs. Underwriters at Lloyds Syndicate 4711 Asp Subscribing To Policy No. B0713medte2001034

TENTATIVE RULINGS 6/11/2026 02:00 PM

100 Corelogic, Inc. vs. Underwriters at Lloyds Syndicate 4711 Asp Subscribing To Policy No. B0713medte2001034

2025-01521725 1. Demurrer to Complaint 2. Motion to Strike Complaint 3. Case Management Conference

OFF CALENDAR BASED ON NOS; COURT WILL SET AN OSC RE DISMISSAL ON SETTLED CASE APPROXIMATELY 45 DAYS OUT BY SEPARATE MO. 103 Blakeslee vs. Daniel Ansel as Coadministrator of Estate of Joseph Anthony Tena

2019-01046095 Motion for Continuance of Action by Successor in Interest

Carol Reichelt’s motion to substitute as successor in interest to deceased Plaintiff Rodney Reichelt is GRANTED. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 377.20- 377.21, 377.30-377.33; see also ROA #493, passim, Exh. A.)

The Court hereby ORDERS “Carol Reichelt, as the successor in interest to Rodney Reichelt,” substituted in for Plaintiff Rodney Reichelt.

Moving party shall give notice. 104 Harrop vs. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC.

2025-01520293

1. Motion to Compel Arbitration 2. Case Management Conference

Defendant Rocket Mortgage, LLC s/b/m Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings is DENIED AS MOOT ON THE CONDITION that Plaintiffs Faith Harrop and Cindy Dang properly file and serve, within 14 days of notice of this ruling, a first amended complaint that asserts only representative PAGA claims and no individual PAGA claims.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs belatedly filed their opposition to the motion on 6/2/2026 rather than by 5/29/2026. Defendant contends in its reply that it was “prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ late filing . . . given the substantially shorter time it had to prepare and file its reply brief.” (ROA #32, Reply, at p. 3.) But Defendant has not provided more detail on the alleged prejudice, including in counsel’s supporting declaration. (See ROA #34, Gonda Decl., passim.) Instead, Defendant filed a 5-page substantive reply brief, in which Defendant contends that the Court “may simply disregard Plaintiffs’ Opposition.” (Id., emphasis added.)

Given that Defendant was able to file a substantive reply brief, the Court exercises its discretion and considers, in the interests of justice, Plaintiffs’ belated opposition. That said, Plaintiffs’ counsel is ADMONISHED to comply with all rules and procedures applicable to this Court with future filings.