MADRIGAL, ROSEMARIE vs SANDHU BROS INC

11. GRANTED as to any discussion of Plaintiff's ability to proceed as lead counsel. The remaining answers are encompassed by the prior answers and existing answers are sufficient as far as they go.

12. GRANTED as to any discussion of Plaintiff's ability to proceed as lead counsel. The remaining answers are encompassed by the prior answers and existing answers are sufficient as far as they go. Providing the information from the thousands of emails Plaintiff sent is overly burdensome and Plaintiff has equivalent access.

13. GRANTED as to any discussion of Plaintiff's ability to proceed as lead counsel.

16. DENIED.

21. DENIED.

22-24. GRANTED in part. Any unprivileged documents must be provided, given the answer to Special Interrogatory 25.

25. DENIED.

26. DENIED.

27. DENIED.

29. DENIED.

30. DENIED.

31. DENIED.

33. DENIED.

35. DENIED.

CV-25-008157 - MADRIGAL, ROSEMARIE vs SANDHU BROS INC - Defendant's Motion to Amend Answer - GRANTED, unopposed. Good cause existing, Defendant is hereby granted leave to amend its Answer to correctly caption same, and to amend Page 2, line 1 of the Answer to amend "SANDHU BROS, INC." to SANDHU BROS GROWERS DBA YAM to accurately reflect Defendant's true and correct name.”(Code of Civ. Proc. Sec. 473(a) W&W El Camino Real, LLC v. Fowler (2014) 226 Cal.App 4 th 263).

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-23-007620 - WRIGHT, ERIKA vs VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK LP - Defendant Valley Industrial Park LP's Motion for Summary Adjudication - HEARING REQUIRED. This matter was continued from July 24, 2026 to July 29, 2026 for oral argument. As a reminder to the parties, below is the tentative ruling that the Court previously posted.

GRANTED - Cross-Complainant, as the moving party, has met the burden of demonstrating entitlement to adjudication of the issues presented herein in its favor. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(p)(2).)

Based on the declaration of William Pinkley and the evidence presented thereby, Cross-Complainant has demonstrated that Cross-Defendant owes a contractual duty to defend and indemnify in connection with Plaintiff's claims against Cross-Complainant herein. Specifically, the undisputed evidence establishes that the subject incident arose out of, involved, or occurred in connection with Cross-Defendant's use and/or occupancy of the premises, as provided in the parties' lease. (See, e.g., UMFs 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23, 26, 27, 35, 36, 39, 40.)

The burden then shifts to Cross-Defendant to submit admissible evidence establishing the existence of material factual disputes preventing adjudication of the issues presented herein. The Court finds that Cross-Defendant has failed to meet that burden.

In that regard, the Court notes that the essence of Cross-Defendant's purported dispute concerns the legal significance of the evidence as it relates to the application of the subject indemnity clause in the lease. However, the Court finds that Cross-Defendant's primary cited authority, Morlin Asset Management LP v. Murachanian (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 184 is inapposite on these facts.

In addition, while Cross-Defendant suggests the application of the exception for the lessor's gross negligence or willful misconduct, the evidence presented on those issues consists primarily of speculation and is insufficient to create a material factual dispute on that claim.