Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Responses of Defendant VOP 2.1, LLC
The Court believes that the potential exists for the parties to informally resolve the issues presented herein if genuine efforts to meet and confer as to such issues are undertaken in good faith. Therefore, the hearing is continued, as above, for that purpose, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or by online video conference to discuss the issues herein. The parties are further ordered to submit a Joint Status Statement by August 28, 2026, describing their efforts to meet-and-confer and any resolution or narrowing of the issues they were able to achieve.
The Court strongly encourages the parties to make genuine efforts to informally resolve their differences with due civility to one another. Should counsel for the parties be unable to reach a reasonable compromise of any of the issues presented by the instant motion, the Court may require personal appearances at the time of the continued hearing to further address the issues herein.
CV-25-004501 - MARTINEZ, ARMANDO ISRAEL vs NEAL, JENNIFER K - Motion to Continue Trial - HEARING REQUIRED.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:
CV-26-002843 - HECHT FAMILY THREE LLC vs VOP 21 LLC - Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Responses of Defendant VOP 2.1, LLC - DENIED. A motion to strike is not the appropriate mechanism herein as motions to strike are only available to attack pleadings such as an Answer, Complaint, or Cross Complaint. Civ. Proc. Code Sec.Sec. 435, 436. The filing at issue is a declaration. The Court does, however, GRANT Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice and notes Defendant's suspension status per Plaintiff's Exhibit A.
A corporation suspended for failure to file a required statement under the Corporations Code is, like a corporation suspended for failure to pay taxes under the Revenue and Taxation Code, disabled from participating in any litigation activities. Palm Valley Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Design MTC (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 553, 559; Corp. Code Sec. 2205, Revenue and Taxation Code Sec. 23301. Defendant is hereby admonished to refrain from submitting filings to the court regarding this action while in suspended status.
Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order within five court days that complies with this ruling.
CV-26-004163 - BENCH, ONEIDA vs CENTRAL VALLEY POST ACUTE - Defendant's Petition to Compel Arbitration - GRANTED. The Court finds that Defendants have discharged their burden of demonstrating the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the decedent
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?”
Rules of Court, rule 3.1330; Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 394, 413. The Court further finds that said agreement is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and its procedural rules. 9 U.S.C Sec.Sec. 2-4; Aviation Data, Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Servs. Co. (2007) 152 Cal.App. 4th 1522; Volt Info. Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. (1989) 489 U.S. 468; Tuufuli v. W. Coast Dental Admin. Servs. LLC (2026) 117 Cal.App. 5th 1048. The Court further finds that the delegation clause in the parties' arbitration agreement, which delegates to the arbitrator the authority to resolve a wide range of disputes -including those relating to the scope of the arbitration agreement and the arbitrability of the present dispute - clearly and unmistakably delegates the stated authority to the arbitrator.
Nickson v. Shemran, Inc. (2023) 90 Cal.App. 5th 121; Jack v. Ring LLC (2023) 91 Cal.App. 5th 1186, review denied; Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (2019) 586 U.S. 63, 67-69; Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson (2019) 561 U.S. 63, 70; and First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944-45. However, to the extent that the parties presented to the court issues exceeding the determination of the validity of the arbitration agreement, the court proceeds to address those issues.
The Court finds that the causes of action for General Negligence, Survival Claim and Elder Abuse and Neglect are survivor actions: decedent's own claims she could have brought had she not died, which are premised on professional negligence and are therefore, pursuant to Article I of the parties' arbitration agreement, subject to