EXHIBIT(S) - A (Motion #001Queen) - BURKE - Exhibit A - BURKE - NYSCEF Doc. No. 1 - Summons and Complaint August 09, 2019 (2024)

Case

LIPSEY,SUE-ANN v. BEDUEN TENT RESTAURANT, INC.

Sep 09, 2013 |Kurtz, Hon. Donald Scott |Tort-Other Negligence |Tort-Other Negligence |12072/2013

Case

Tropp, Tamara v. City of New York et al

Aug 06, 2020 |Katherine A |Tort-Other Negligence-City |Tort-Other Negligence-City |514233/2020

Case

RUBIN,RICHARD v. CITY OF NY

Dec 22, 2015 |Kurtz, Hon. Donald Scott |Tort-Other Negligence |Tort-Other Negligence |7383/2015

Case

Miguel Rodriguez v. Driggs Partners Llc, Ray Builders Inc.

Sep 09, 2021 |Devin P. Cohen |Torts - Other (Labor Law) |Torts - Other (Labor Law) |523049/2021

Case

Jun 27, 2016 |Sweeney, Hon. Peter Paul |Tort-Other Negligence |Tort-Other Negligence |1087/2016

Case

Oct 23, 2006 |Fisher, Hon. Pamela L. |Tort-Medical, Dental, or Podiatric Malpractice |Tort-Medical, Dental, or Podiatric Malpractice |5649/2006

Case

Jose C. Henriquez v. Alexandria Vieg, Alejandro Rodriguez

Aug 26, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |523040/2024

Case

GIBSON,ELAINE M v. BEDFORD-STUYVESANT

May 04, 2012 |Partnow, Hon. Mark I. |Tort-Other Negligence |Tort-Other Negligence |2965/2012

Case

SERVAIS,CAMERON L. v. GIBSON,GEORGE E. M.

Nov 13, 2013 |Vaughan, Hon. David B. |Tort-Motor Vehicle |Tort-Motor Vehicle |12378/2013

Ruling

TENG JIAO ZHOU, ET AL. VS NORTH EL MONTE AUTOMOTIVE, ET AL.

Aug 27, 2024 |24PSCV01179

Case Number: 24PSCV01179 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: O Tentative Ruling (1) Plaintiffs Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. (2) PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINANTS COMPLAINT is MOOT in part (i.e., punitive damages) and DENIED in part (untimeliness). Background This is a negligence case. Plaintiffs TENG JIAO ZHOU (Zhou) and Yung Wu (Wu) allege the following against Defendants NORTH EL MONTE AUTOMOTIVE, business form unknown, and HANK JANN, an individual and JENNIFER JANN, as an individual and as TRUSTEE OF THE ELDAN JANN AND JENNIFER JANN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, and ELDAN JANN, as an individual and as TRUSTEE OF THE ELDAN JANN AND JENNIFER JANN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST: Defendants hired Zhou to do repairs on the roof of a premises owned by Defendants; Zhou was not licensed nor is he a licensed contractor. On the second day of the job, Zhou fell off the latter. Zhou alleges that because he was unlicensed, he is deemed an employee of the Defendants for civil tort purposes. On April 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed suit for: 1. Negligence 2. Premises Liability 3. Loss of Consortium (Wu is Zhous wife)

Ruling

KEVIN LLEWELLYN vs. CALIFORNIA HOTEL GROUP LLC

Aug 28, 2024 |23CV13260

No appearances necessary. After review of the parties’ CMC statements, the matter is continued for trial setting to October 2, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 3. Parties and counsel are ordered to meet and confer in advance regarding mutually available dates for trial.

Ruling

RICKY MILLAN, ET AL. VS JOAN PLOTFIN, ET AL.

Aug 29, 2024 |22STCV26847

Case Number: 22STCV26847 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: 48 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT RICKY MILLAN, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. JOAN PLOTFIN, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 22STCV26847 [REVISED TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES; SUSTAINING DEMURRER Dept. 48 8:30 a.m. August 29, 2024 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES On January 10, 2024, Defendant Joan Plotkin, individually and as trustee of Plotkin Trust Agreement Dated August 28, 1991 filed a motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from Plaintiffs Ricky Millan, Silvia Millan, Michael Millan, Samantha Millan, and Tommy Millan. A. Defendant is Ordered to Pay Four Additional Filing Fees. Defendants single motion seeks to compel production pursuant to five discovery requests (one for each Plaintiff). Each set of discovery should have been filed as a separate motion, with separate filing fees and hearing reservations. Despite being scheduled as only one motion and one hearing, the total substance is that of five motions. This unfairly allows Defendant to take only one hearing reservation (instead of five) and results in an inaccurate projection and accounting of the Courts workload, inconveniencing both the Court and other litigants. All parties are ordered not to do this and are warned that continued action of this type may result in monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5. For any future discovery motions, the parties must file a separate motion for each discovery request, or the Court may strike or deny the motions for being improperly filed. Defendant is ORDERED to pay four additional filing fees within 10 days. A Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Defendants Payment of Four Additional Filing Fees is scheduled for September 13, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. B. Defendant Did Not Comply With This Departments Procedures. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant did not comply with the Courts requirement to hold an informal discovery conference. (Opposition at p. 3.) However, according to Page 1 of Department 48s Courtroom Information, available on the Courts website (www.lacourt.org), Informal Discovery Conferences (IDCs) are not conducted in Department 48. You may file your motions to compel further discovery. However, the Court now requires the parties to also file a joint statement for discovery disputes (as outlined in Exhibit A) together with your motions. For a motion to compel further, the moving party must meet and confer with the opposing party and file a Separate Statement or follow the Courts alternative method of outlining the disputes. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).) This Department requires the parties to follow the procedures outlined in Exhibit A of Department 48s Courtroom Information (available on the Courts website, www.lacourt.org) and file a joint statement. Defendant did not comply with these requirements. If any party continues to electronically file noncompliant documents, the Court may strike the filings or impose monetary sanctions. C. Plaintiffs Supplemental Production Makes This Motion Moot. On August 12, 2024, Plaintiffs served supplemental responses, including responsive documents. (Yadegari Decl. ¶ 3.) Accordingly, the motion is moot. Defendant argues that the motion is not moot because the supplemental responses remain deficient. (See Reply.) Those further arguments may be raised in a timely motion to compel further responses that complies with all procedural requirements. However, the original motion filed on January 10, 2024 is now moot. D. Conclusion The motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is DENIED AS MOOT. DEMURRER On March 27, 2023, Plaintiffs Ricky Millan, Silvia Millan, Michael Millan, Samantha Millan, and Tommy Millan filed a first amended complaint (FAC). The FAC alleges (1) negligence premises liability; (2) negligence per se; (3) negligent hiring; (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) nuisance; (7) breach of contract; (8) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (9) unfair business practices; and (10) fraudulent concealment. On March 26, 2024, Plaintiffs identified Doe 3 as Defendant Milner Roofing Inc. On July 8, 2024, Defendant filed a demurrer. A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, accepting the alleged facts as true. (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.) Because a demurrer challenges defects on the face of the complaint, it can only refer to matters outside the pleading that are subject to judicial notice. (Arce ex rel. Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 556.) A. Defendants Request for Judicial Notice is Granted. Plaintiffs argue that the demurrer is based solely on impermissible use of extrinsic evidence, an unsigned, unauthenticated paper (see Defendants Demurrer) which must not be considered. (Opposition at p. 4.) The unsigned, unauthenticated paper is a copy of the Trust Transfer Deed recorded on May 23, 2018 as document number 20180509199. The Court may take judicial notice of the existence and recordation of real property records, including deeds of trust, when the authenticity of the documents is not challenged, as well as a variety of matters that can be deduced from the documents. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264-265.) [A] court may take judicial notice of the fact of a documents recordation, the date the document was recorded and executed, the parties to the transaction reflected in a recorded document, and the documents legally operative language, assuming there is no genuine dispute regarding the documents authenticity. From this, the court may deduce and rely upon the legal effect of the recorded document, when that effect is clear from its face. (Id. at p. 265.) The request for judicial notice is granted to the extent explained above. B. The Deed Does Not Show that Defendant Lacks Any Interest in the Property. Defendant argues that it did not own, possess, or control the property. (See Demurrer at p. 7.) The Trust Transfer Deed reflects a conveyance of real property from JOAN H. PLOTKIN, Trustee of the PLOTKIN TRUST AGREEMENT dated August 28, 1991 to JOAN H. PLOTKIN, Trustee of the SURVIVORS TRUST under the PLOTKIN TRUST AGREEMENT dated August 28, 1991 on May 16, 2018. The legal effect of the Deed is a transfer of the property on May 16, 2018. It does not show that Defendant had no interest in the property at any time thereafter until the September 5, 2020 fire. The demurrer is overruled on this ground. C. Plaintiffs Negligence Causes of Action Are Duplicative. Defendant argues that the causes of action for negligence per se (second cause of action), negligent hiring (third cause of action), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (fourth cause of action) are duplicative of the first cause of action for negligence. (Demurrer at pp. 7-89) Plaintiffs first four cases of action all allege different theories of negligence and should be combined into a single cause of action for negligence. The demurrer is sustained on this ground. D. There Are No Facts About Defendants Conduct. Defendant argues that there are no allegations about its involvement in any wrongdoing or any relationship with Plaintiffs. (See Demurrer at pp. 7-14.) Plaintiffs sued Joan Plotkin and Doe Defendants, and they later identified Defendant as Doe 3. The allegations that all Does are responsible for Plaintiffs harm and that they are the agents, servants, employees, and/or joint venturers of their co-defendants are conclusory and lack facts. (FAC ¶¶ 7-8.) Each cause of action is brought against All Defendants. However, Plaintiffs specifically seek equitable relief, monetary and punitive damages against Defendant JOAN PLOTKIN, a California landlord. (FAC ¶ 1.) The landlords failed to properly fix the roof, the absence of a swamp cooler caused an electrical fire, and the negligence and lack of care by the landlord caused this situation which led to the fire. (See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 19, 24, 27; 31, 35, 40.) The lack of maintenance, the poor conditions, and the fire gave rise to all of Plaintiffs damages. (See, e.g., FAC ¶ 50, 62, 69, 77, 85, 97.) There are no specific facts about Defendants involvement. The demurrer to all causes of action is sustained on this ground. E. Conclusion Defendant Milner Roofing Inc.s demurrer is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend. On January 11, 2024, the Court sustained Joan Plotkins demurrer to the third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth causes of action with 30 days leave to amend. Plaintiffs did not timely file an amended complaint. Joan Plotkin then filed an answer to the remainder of the FAC on March 7, 2024. Accordingly, this orders grant of leave to amend is limited to the allegations about demurring Defendant Milner Roofing Inc. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar. Dated this 29th day of August 2024 Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court

Ruling

Maria Aguilar Barajas, et al. vs Eduardo Flores, et al.

Aug 30, 2024 |23CV-04351

23CV-04351 Maria Aguilar Barajas, et al. v. Eduardo Flores, et al.Order to Show Caue re: DismissalAppearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of thecourt at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance. Appearto address Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the June 25, 2024, Case ManagementConference and at the July 31, 2024, Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions. Absent anappearance by Plaintiff and a showing of good cause, this matter will be DISMISSEDWITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Ruling

BYRD vs YANEZ

Aug 26, 2024 |CVPS2403104

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel forCVPS2403104 BYRD vs YANEZZACHARY BYRDTentative Ruling: Grant. No opposition was filed. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged at thetime the motion was filed. Counsel are reminded that they are not relieved until proof of service of thesigned order upon their client has been filed with the Court.

Ruling

JUAN PEREZ ROJAS, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

Case Number: 21STCV40615 Hearing Date: August 28, 2024 Dept: 29 This matter has been transferred to a different department. The hearing must be renoticed in the new department.Moving party to give notice.

Ruling

JOHN ROE VS MADELINE ISABEL CORDOBA, ET AL.

Aug 29, 2024 |22STCV32918

Case Number: 22STCV32918 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: 14 #13 Case Background Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely accused him of giving one of the Defendants herpes. Defendants allege that Plaintiff did in fact give this woman herpes. The relevant procedural history is as follows: On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (FAC) for (1) Defamation, (2) Libel, (3) Slander, (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), (5) Fraudulent Concealment, (6) Civil Extortion, and (7) Libel against Defendants Madeline Isabel Cordoba (Cordoba), Justin Daily (Daily), Reed Aljian (Aljian), and Daily Aljian LLP (Firm).1 The first five causes of action are asserted against Defendant Cordoba only. The last two causes of action are asserted against the Attorney Defendants only. On August 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (SAC) for (1) Defamation, (2) Libel, (3) Slander, (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), (5) Civil Code § 1708.85, and (6) Negligence against Defendant Cordoba. On April 18, 2023, Defendant Cordoba filed her First Amended Cross-Complaint (Cross-Complaint) for (1) Sexual Battery, (2) Intentional Misrepresentation, (3) Concealment, (4) Negligent Misrepresentation, (5) Negligence, and (6) IIED against Plaintiff and ROES 1-35. On February 27, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion for a protective order. On June 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to seal. Instant Pleading Plaintiff moves to seal documents he filed in support of his motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. Decision Plaintiffs motion to seal the documents submitted in support of his motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is GRANTED. The Court orders Exhibits H, I, J, K, L, and M to the Declaration of Michael Killingsworth submitted in support of Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication sealed. Discussion Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 2.550 the court may seal a record only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) In Hinshaw v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 233, 242, the court stated that private, non-governmental parties have a privacy interest in maintaining confidentiality of settlement agreements that contain personal financial information. The sealing of court documents is not permitted solely based on the agreement of the parties "without a specific showing of serious injury." (Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 106.) Regarding the serious injury, "[b]road allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient." (Huffy, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 106) (quoting In re Cendant Corp. (3d Cir. 2001) 260 F.3d 183, 194.) Here, Plaintiff moves to seal exhibits H, I, J, K, L, and M to the Declaration of Michael Killingsworth which he submitted in support of his motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. These documents include: Exhibit 1: Copies of the subpoenas at issue. Exhibit H: Defendants testing results from May 13, 2022. Exhibit I: Defendants Communications to Plaintiff threatening to contact Plaintiffs workplace. Exhibit J: Medical testing results of one of Defendants other sexual partners. Exhibit K: Communications between Defendant and her doctor. Exhibit L: Communications between Defendant and Plaintiff. Exhibit M: Defendants medical records from May 25, 2022. Plaintiff argues that the documents include information marked for protection under the protective order in this action. Plaintiff seeks to seal these documents to protect Defendants rights under the protective order and to protect Plaintiffs true name and identifying characteristics. The records include medical records, sensitive communications and images, and Plaintiffs true name. It is reasonable to infer that these documents are confidential or highly confidential as defined in the protective order because the content of the documents could harm the parties reputations if they are made public. The Court finds that an overriding interest exists which overcomes the publics right to access these materials and supports sealing the records. Both parties in this action will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed. Finally, the sealing is narrowly tailored and there are no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest. Therefore, the motions to seal are granted. Conclusion Plaintiffs motion to seal the documents submitted in support of his motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is GRANTED. The Court orders Exhibits H, I, J, K, L, and M to the Declaration of Michael Killingsworth submitted in support of Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication sealed.

Ruling

KRYSTAL RENEE CASTRO, ET AL. VS THOMAZ PHILLIP COUSSEAU, ET AL.

Case Number: 21STCV31342 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: 29 Castro v. Cousseau 21STCV31342 Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, filed by Plaintiffs Counsel Albert Abkarian & Associates. Background On August 24, 2021, Krystal Renee Castro, Victor Andres Avila, Brisstelle Avila, and Viktor Amias Avila filed a complaint against Thomaz Phillip Cousseau, Nissan North America Inc., and Rebecca Diane Mullin (collectively Defendants) for negligence cause of action arising out of an automobile collision on July 18, 2020. On October 26, 2021, Defendants filed an answer. In June 2023, the Court granted the petition for approval of minors compromises in this case. An OSC re proof of deposit was set and continued several times; in the interim, it appears that counsel has been unable to communicate with the client (guardian ad litem). On June 20, 2024, Albert Abkarian & Associates (Counsel) filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Krystal Renee Castro (Plaintiff). No opposition has been filed. Legal Standard The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 284(b).) An attorney is permitted to withdraw where conflicts between the attorney and client make it unreasonable to continue the representation. (See Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1).) The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.) An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a)), MC-052 (Declaration) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.136(c)), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e)). Further, the requisite forms must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) The court may delay effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) Discussion Counsel has filed the Notice, Declaration, and Order to be Relieved as Counsel. However, Counsel fails to include all future hearings, including the OSC re Proof of Deposit set for September 25, 2024, on both the Declaration and Order. Moreover, the Court has the following additional concerns: (1) a guardian ad litem cannot represent a minor without counsel, and granting the motion could leave the case in an uncertain state; and (2) it is unclear to the Court whether the settlement funds have been paid and, if so, whether they have been deposited into a blocked account as ordered. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Conclusion The motion to be relieved as counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Moving counsel to give notice.

Document

Fatmata M. Turay, Deion R. Hylton v. Md Raihan, Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber Usa, Llc, Kevin A. Miller, Tiernan Kiefer

Mar 23, 2022 |Lisa S. Ottley |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |508414/2022

Document

Pedro Flores v. The New York City Housing Authority, Nycha I Housing Development Fund Corporation

Aug 03, 2017 |Landicino |Torts - Other Negligence (Labor Law) |Torts - Other Negligence (Labor Law) |515064/2017

Document

Mar 29, 2016 |Devin P. Cohen |Torts - Other (Fall) |Torts - Other (Fall) |504664/2016

Document

Bernardo Marin, Janet Marin v. 41 Harrison Av Llc

Apr 14, 2016 |Devin P |Torts - Other (Fall) |Torts - Other (Fall) |505903/2016

Document

Alesia Kelly As Administrator of the Estate of JULIANA S. ROSS v. Visiting Nurse Service Of New York

Nov 18, 2022 |Ellen M. Spodek |Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |533854/2022

Document

Michele Johnson v. 705-711 Franklin Realty Llc

Oct 01, 2018 |Larry D |Torts - Other Negligence (Slip and Fall) |Torts - Other Negligence (Slip and Fall) |519675/2018

Document

Mar 29, 2016 |Devin P. Cohen |Torts - Other (Fall) |Torts - Other (Fall) |504664/2016

Document

David Lopez, Iris Guzman v. Kamco Services, Llc, D'Onofrio General Contractors Corp.

Jul 16, 2018 |Carolyn E. Wade |Torts - Other Negligence (Labor Law) |Torts - Other Negligence (Labor Law) |514485/2018