DEPARTMENT P LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Case Number: 23SMCV04724 Hearing Date: March 14, 2025 Dept: P Tentative Ruling California General Underwriters Insurance Company v. Menco, Case no. 23SMCV04724 Hearing date March 14, 2025 Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer and Enter Default Plaintiff California General Underwriters Insurance Company, Inc. sues defendant Menco & Associates. for negligence and breach of contract arising from water damage to a property insured by plaintiff and partially constructed by defendant. The court previously granted plaintiff’s motions to compel responses and deem RFAs admitted. See Min. Order 1/8/25. Plaintiff now moves to strike defendant’s answer and enter default, asserting defendant failed to respond to discovery and disobeyed court orders. The motion is unopposed. Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030(d)(1) and (d)(4), the court has the authority to issue an order striking the pleadings and rendering default judgment against any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. Under §2023.010, misuses of the discovery process include: “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery;” “(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery;” and “(i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery.” Per counsel, defendant failed to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests served on 9/25/24. Decl. Kim para. 5. Defendant failed to obey court orders compelling production and issuing sanctions. Decl. Kim para. 11. Defendant failed to engage in meet and confer efforts, failed to attend IDCs and failed to prepare joint statements as ordered by the court. Decl. Kim paras. 7-8, 10. Defendant’s actions are clear abuses of the discovery process and in violation of the court orders. The motion is unopposed, as were plaintiff’s previous motions seeking to compel production. Defendant’s counsel previously represented they lost communication with defendant. See Decl. Kim para. 6. Defendant has given no indication of any intention to meet its discovery obligations, obey court orders or engaging in the litigation process. Striking the answer and entering default is appropriate. GRANTED; plaintiff to file default documents within 15 days.

DEPARTMENT P LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Case Number: 23SMCV04724 Hearing Date: March 14, 2025 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

California General Underwriters Insurance Company v. Menco, Case no. 23SMCV04724

Hearing date March 14, 2025

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer and Enter Default

Plaintiff California General Underwriters Insurance Company, Inc. sues defendant Menco & Associates. for negligence and breach of contract arising from water damage to a property insured by plaintiff and partially constructed by defendant. The court previously granted plaintiff’s motions to compel responses and deem RFAs admitted. See Min. Order 1/8/25. Plaintiff now moves to strike defendant’s answer and enter default, asserting defendant failed to respond to discovery and disobeyed court orders. The motion is unopposed.

Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030(d)(1) and (d)(4), the court has the authority to issue an order striking the pleadings and rendering default judgment against any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. Under §2023.010, misuses of the discovery process include: “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery;” “(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery;” and “(i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery.”

Per counsel, defendant failed to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests served on 9/25/24. Decl. Kim para. 5. Defendant failed to obey court orders compelling production and issuing sanctions. Decl. Kim para. 11. Defendant failed to engage in meet and confer efforts, failed to attend IDCs and failed to prepare joint statements as ordered by the court. Decl. Kim paras. 7-8, 10. Defendant’s actions are clear abuses of the discovery process and in violation of the court orders.

The motion is unopposed, as were plaintiff’s previous motions seeking to compel production. Defendant’s counsel previously represented they lost communication with defendant. See Decl. Kim para. 6. Defendant has given no indication of any intention to meet its discovery obligations, obey court orders or engaging in the litigation process. Striking the answer and entering default is appropriate. GRANTED; plaintiff to file default documents within 15 days.

DEPARTMENT P LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Case Number: 22SMCV00923 Hearing Date: March 13, 2025 Dept: P Tentative Ruling 8827 Pico v. BHTK, Inc., Case no. 22SMCV00923 Hearing date March 13, 2025 Counsel Berzner’s Motion to be Relieved Plaintiff 8827 Pico, LLC sues defendants BHTK, Inc. and Morris for breach of contract arising from defendants’ alleged failure to pay commercial rent. Counsel for BHTZ, Berzner, moves to be relieved on the grounds BHTK is a suspended corporation that cannot prosecute or defend an action in California. Decl. Berzner para. 2. BHTK does no oppose the motion. An application to be relieved must be made on judicial counsel form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) per Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a), MC-052 (Declaration) per CRC rule 3.1362(c), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) per CRC rule 3.1362(e). The proposed order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. CRC rule 3.1362(e). Counsel complied with all 3.1362 requirements. Trial is not set. BHTK cannot prosecute or defend actions in California court, but if it cures its suspension, it will have sufficient time to retain new counsel, so granting the relief will not prejudice BHTK. GRANTED.

DEPARTMENT P LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Case Number: 22SMCV00923 Hearing Date: March 13, 2025 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

8827 Pico v. BHTK, Inc., Case no. 22SMCV00923

Hearing date March 13, 2025

Counsel Berzner’s Motion to be Relieved

Plaintiff 8827 Pico, LLC sues defendants BHTK, Inc. and Morris for breach of contract arising from defendants’ alleged failure to pay commercial rent. Counsel for BHTZ, Berzner, moves to be relieved on the grounds BHTK is a suspended corporation that cannot prosecute or defend an action in California. Decl. Berzner para. 2. BHTK does no oppose the motion.

An application to be relieved must be made on judicial counsel form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) per Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a), MC-052 (Declaration) per CRC rule 3.1362(c), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) per CRC rule 3.1362(e). The proposed order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. CRC rule 3.1362(e). Counsel complied with all 3.1362 requirements.

Trial is not set. BHTK cannot prosecute or defend actions in California court, but if it cures its suspension, it will have sufficient time to retain new counsel, so granting the relief will not prejudice BHTK. GRANTED.

DEPARTMENT P LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Case Number: 24SMCP00686 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: P Tentative Ruling Bill Me Later v. The Focus and Finish Group, Case no. 24SMCP00686 Hearing date March 10, 2025 Petitioner’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award Petitioner Bill Me Later, Inc. is the servicing agent for lender WebBank, which extended a loan to borrower The Focus and Finish Group (Petition exh. 4(b)), guaranteed by Kofi Nartey. Id. Borrower defendant defaulted, and guarantor Nartey failed to make the remaining payments due. Petitioner Bill Me Later initiated arbitration for the unpaid balance. The arbitrator issued an award of $86,734.04 on 9/6/24. Petition exh. 8(c). Petitioner asserts borrower and guarantor failed to satisfy the award and moves for confirmation. The motion is unopposed. “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” Code Civ. Proc. §1285. “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made.” Code Civ. Proc. §1286. Petitioner seeks to have the court confirm the award of $86,734.04, plus 10% interest since 10/6/24, pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §3289(b). Petitioner additionally moves for costs; a memorandum of costs will be submitted pursuant to §28(d) of the loan agreement. See Petition exh. 4(b). Confirmation of the unopposed motion is GRANTED. Petitioner to file a memorandum of costs for review.

DEPARTMENT P LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Case Number: 24SMCP00686 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Bill Me Later v. The Focus and Finish Group, Case no. 24SMCP00686

Hearing date March 10, 2025

Petitioner’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award

Petitioner Bill Me Later, Inc. is the servicing agent for lender WebBank, which extended a loan to borrower The Focus and Finish Group (Petition exh. 4(b)), guaranteed by Kofi Nartey. Id. Borrower defendant defaulted, and guarantor Nartey failed to make the remaining payments due.

Petitioner Bill Me Later initiated arbitration for the unpaid balance. The arbitrator issued an award of $86,734.04 on 9/6/24. Petition exh. 8(c). Petitioner asserts borrower and guarantor failed to satisfy the award and moves for confirmation. The motion is unopposed.

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” Code Civ. Proc. §1285. “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made.” Code Civ. Proc. §1286.

Petitioner seeks to have the court confirm the award of $86,734.04, plus 10% interest since 10/6/24, pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §3289(b). Petitioner additionally moves for costs; a memorandum of costs will be submitted pursuant to §28(d) of the loan agreement. See Petition exh. 4(b). Confirmation of the unopposed motion is GRANTED. Petitioner to file a memorandum of costs for review.