Petition of Greenberg

by Respondent. Further, the court finds the Petition complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4. Accordingly, the arbitrator’s Award in favor of Petitioner is CONFIRMED. Petitioner’s request for an additional award of interest or attorney’s fees beyond the amounts stated in the award is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Petitioner has failed to submit calculations or evidence supporting such. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 [“In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations”].) Indeed, the petition is not verified and there is no declaration submitted in support of it nor are there any calculations establishing the amount of interest sought. Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

2. Lopez, Bark & Schulz LLP vs. Watson 2025-01537149 Before the court is (1) the continued hearing on the petition to confirm arbitration award filed by petitioner Lopez, Bark & Schulz LLP (Petitioner), and (2) Petitioner’s ex parte application for order permitting service of petition via electronic mail and/or other electronic technology pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 413.30. No tentative on the merits will be posted. The will hear from counsel at the hearing.

3. Petition of Greenberg 2026-01559277 Before the court is the petition to compel inspection of corporate records filed by petitioner David Greenberg (Petitioner). As set forth more fully below, the hearing is CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23. A stockholder’s right to inspect the corporate books may be enforced by a writ of mandate. (Webster v. Barlett Estate Co. (1917) 35 Cal.App. 283, 285; see also Most v. First Nat. Bank of San Diego (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 425; Tritek Telecom, Inc. v.

Superior Court (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1385.) A petition for writ of mandate must be served on respondent (and real parties in interest, if any) in the manner required for service of a summons and complaint, i.e., pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10 et. seq. (Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 830, 839.) Here, Petitioner has not filed any proof of service showing timely and properly service of the petition and notice of hearing on respondent Plastoker, Inc. (Respondent) Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the petition is CONTINUED as stated above.

Petitioner is ordered to

timely and properly serve Respondent and to file proof of such service at least five court days before the continued hearing date. Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

4. The City of Dana Point vs. SND, L.P. 2026-01570223 CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 17, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., pursuant to stipulation and order entered on July 6, 2026.

5. McMillan vs. Exir Co., Inc. 2012-00564599 Before the court is the motion of defendant Abraham N. Mourshaki (Defendant) to deposit funds with the court and for entry of satisfaction of judgment. The court will not post a tentative ruling on the merits of this motion. Instead, both Defendant and plaintiff Richard V. McMillan (Plaintiff) are ordered to appear for the hearing to discuss the motion and resolution of the parties’ dispute regarding the amount required to fully satisfy the judgment. Remote appearances are acceptable for purposes of this hearing.

6. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan vs. Sharp Memorial Hospital 2026-01566981 Before the court is the motion to seal portions of the opposition brief and supporting documents respondents Sharp Memorial Hospital, Sharp Coronado Hospital & Healthcare Center, Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, and Grossmont Hospital Corporation dba Sharp Grossmont Hospital (collectively, Respondents) filed in response to the petition to confirm arbitration award filed by Kaiser Foundation Health Plan (Petitioner). As more fully set forth below, the hearing is CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23, for Respondents to provide unredacted copies of the documents sought to be sealed, potentially narrow the request to seal, and potentially make a more detailed and specific showing to support the sealing request.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551, Respondents request the court seal portions of the opposition to the Petitioner’s petition to confirm the arbitration award, portions of the declaration filed in support of the opposition, and the entirety of many of the exhibits attached to the supporting declaration. Under the Rules of Court, the party moving to seal any documents must lodge unredacted copies of those documents. (Rules Ct., rule 2.551, subdivisions (b), (d).) With electronic filing, that is customarily done by filing a public and nonpublic version of each document to be sealed.