Lister vs. Valley Post-Acute And Rehab LLC

5 Hess Rehabilitation Motion to Quash Service of Summons & Chiropractic Centers, Inc. vs. The court GRANTS the unopposed motion to quash service California Lawyers of summons filed by Specially Appearing Defendants Group CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP, INC. and MITRA CHEGINI, individually and dba CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP, INC.

The motion is well-taken and unopposed. The court further notes that the court file does not contain a properly issued Summons.

According to Defendants, Plaintiff filed a substantially similar lawsuit.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to immediately file a Notice of Related Case, as required by Rule 3.300 of the California Rules of Court.

Specially Appearing Defendants to give notice.

6 Lister vs. Valley Motion for Leave to Amend (re First Amended Complaint) Post-Acute And Rehab LLC The court GRANTS the unopposed motion filed by Plaintiff KATHLEEN ROSE LISTER, by and through her Successor-In- Interest HATTIE DAVIS’s for leave to file a proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a proposed FAC that would add a third cause of action for violations of Health and Safety Code section 1430(b) (FAC ¶¶ 82-90) and add references to the Third Cause of Action in the Prayer (see FAC Prayer at ¶¶ 4-5). (See Garcia Decl., Exh. 1.)

According to the motion, the proposed changes result from discovery responses.

The motion appears to be timely, is unopposed, and no apparent prejudice exists to Defendants. The scheduled trial is not until 12/6/27.

No later than five days from the hearing, Plaintiff shall separately file the proposed FAC, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Garcia Declaration.

The FAC is deemed served as to Defendants VALLEY POST- ACUTE AND REHAB, LLC and VPR OPS, LLC as of the date of the 8/28/26 hearing. These Defendants shall have 30 days to respond to the FAC.

Plaintiff SHALL serve the FAC on Defendant SEQUOIA HEALTH CARE LLC (“Sequoia”) within 10 days. Sequoia was previously defaulted on the original Complaint on 5/8/26. The default is of no moment once the FAC is filed.

Plaintiff to give notice.

7 Orange County Motion to Bifurcate Trial (ROA 344) Sanitation District vs. Jackson The court DENIES the motion to bifurcate filed by Defendants DONALD A. ISKIERKA, VIRGINIA L. ISKIERKA, PHILIP J. RIZZO, ANDREA L. RIZZO, HOOMAN K SHAHIDI, NAZANIN GHAFFARIZADEH, BEVERLY K. UERLING, DEREK J. UERLING, MARK GERSON, MYRA GERSON, OLEG VOLF, YANINA GINZBERG, DEAN E. WEST, DEBORA A. WEST, FRANCIS LA PLACA, GAETANO LA PLACA, SHERI LA PLACA, KOZO TERAJIMA, FRANK H. CLARKE III, GERARD F. MCCABE, CATHERINE F. MCCABE, and HELEN J. LOWELL.

Defendants request an order phasing the trial such that the claims of Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (the “District”) against certain defendants with “limited improvements” (versus “major permanent improvements”) would be tried first. Defendants appear to define “limited improvements” as those “without pools or major permanent improvements allegedly within the easement area.” (Mov. Pts. & Auth. at p. 2, lines 9-10.) Defendants define “major permanent improvements” to include “pools, sheds, hardscape, or the like over the easement area.” (Mov. Pts. & Auth. at p. 5, line 14.) Of the 12 properties at issue, six apparently fall under the “limited improvements” category

4