VETTER, KRISTOPHER GUY V. CITY OF CHICO

10. 24CV02608 LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC V. DURAN ANGEL, LUIS A ET AL EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Loss Mitigation

The Motion is unopposed and is granted. The Case Management Conference on June 24, 2026 is continued to September 30, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. The Court will sign the form of order submitted by Plaintiff.

11-12. 24CV02890 RAY, ROWENA V. SIERRA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION EVENTS: (1) Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlemnet, (2) Review Hearing – Final Settlement Approval

The Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Enhancement Award, and Settlement Administration Costs is granted. The Court will sign the form of order submitted by counsel with the addition of the final compliance hearing date on December 2, 2026 at 10:30 a.m., and a deadline for filing the Declarations attesting to compliance no later than 7 calendar days before the hearing.

13. 25CV01221 VETTER, KRISTOPHER GUY V. CITY OF CHICO EVENT: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; and for Monetary Sanctions

The Court finds, as to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, that the 35-question limit set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §2030.030(a)(1), (b), has been exceeded. Plaintiff’s subsequent “withdrawal” of Special Interrogatories, Set One, after Defendant had provided responses is inappropriate and of no effect. Given that Plaintiff failed to provide a Declaration of Necessity, as required by Code of Civil Procedure §2030.050, the Motion to Compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two is denied.

As to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, the Court finds that neither the term “INCIDENT” or “property” or “PRR” are so ambiguous as to render the Requests unintelligible and prevent the Defendant from responding. As such, the conclusion that Defendant is unable to comply because the terms INCIDENT, property and/or PRR are undefined in Propounding Party's Requests for Production, lacks merit and the Court orders Defendant to provide further responses to Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

In regard to Request No. 10, Defendant’s response does not satisfy the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure §2031.210 which requires a response include one of the following: “(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities. (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item. (3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” If there are no documents to support this affirmative defense, the 4|Page

Defendant should so state, and the Court orders Defendant to provide a further response to Request for Production No.

10.

For the same reason discussed above, in relation to Requests for Admission, Set One, the Court again finds that the terms “property”, “Plaintiff’s property”, “PRR” and “INCIDENT” are not so ambiguous as to render the Requests unintelligible and prevent the Defendant from responding. As such, the conclusion that Defendant is unable to comply because these terms are undefined in Propounding Party's Requests for Admission, lacks merit and the Court orders Defendant to provide further responses to Requests for Admissions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Finally, as to Form Interrogatories, Set One, the Court finds that Defendant’s responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1.1 (with identification of the noted “various City departments and employees”); 12.1 (substantive response); and 15.1 (substantive response) require further response. The remaining Interrogatories: 2.1, 2.5, and 2.6 are irrelevant and the responses provided sufficient. Defendant’s further responses shall be served within 20 days’ notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted, the Court finding that Plaintiff was forced to seek this relief prior to Defendant providing Code compliant responses without substantial justification. The Court awards sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record in the amount of $450, which are to be paid within 30 days’ notice of this ruling. Counsel for the Plaintiff shall prepare and submit a form of order consistent with this ruling within two weeks.

14. 25CV04770 OBRIEN, CAMERON RILEY V. PBM SUPPLY & MFG INC ET AL EVENT: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

The Court finds that Defendant PBM Supply & Mfg Inc. (“Defendant” herein) has established the existence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. In terms of procedural and substantive elements of unconscionability, both must be present for a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce a contract or clause under the doctrine of unconscionability, and the Court finds that neither procedural nor substantive unconscionability have been established by Plaintiff here. The Motion is granted.

Plaintiff Cameron Riley Obrien is hereby ordered to arbitrate, in binding arbitration, his claims against Defendant and the matter is hereby stayed pending completion of arbitration. The Case Management Conference on June 3, 2026 is vacated, and the matter is set for a Review Hearing for status of arbitration on September 23, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. The Court will sign the form of order submitted by counsel. ///

5|Page