Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2020-00036310-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 19, 2023

12/20/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2020-00036310-CU-BC-CTL SC COMMERCIAL LLC VS STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Cross-Defendant The SoCo Group, Inc. (SOCO)'s Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication is DENIED.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant SC Commercial LLC and Cross-Defendant Jeffrey Dartt's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The alternate Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED IN PART (as to Issue 2) and DENIED IN PART (as to Issues 1 and 3-7.) Preliminary Matters SOCO's motion first came on calendar on June 16, 2023. The Court granted Cross-Complainants Starline Tours of Hollywood (Starline), Screamline Investment Corp. (Screamline) and Kamrouz Farhadi's (collectively, Starline Parties) request for a continuance to conduct discovery. The Court continued both this motion and SC Commercial (SCC)/Jeffrey Dartt's motion to November 3 and then again to December 15. (ROA 536, 563.) The Court initially notes the parties have made it incredibly difficult for the Court to assess these important, dispositive motions, particularly in light of the Court's already congested motion calendar. The Court closely reviewed the allegations, facts proposed in the separate statement, the framing of the issues (and the sub-issues), the parties' arguments and the evidence. It was clear to the Court that all parties cited to evidence that did not stand for the facts proffered. There are also several areas of incomplete analysis. Procedural and substantive mistakes abound on all sides, leaving the Court uncomfortable granting adjudication (as to nearly all issues) on this record.

Further, when the SOCO motion first came on calendar, the tentative ruling indicated the Court did not receive courtesy copies of the motion. Although not included in the order continuing the motion, only within the last few days did SOCO and SCC/Dartt provide courtesy copies for their motions. Department 70's Policies and Procedures require courtesy copies.

The Cross-Complaint's Allegations Generally, Cross-Complainants operate chartered bus companies. In 2014, they contracted with SOCO to provide diesel fuel. Dartt represented SOCO as an agent.

These two motions are directed to the Cross-Complaint, which asserts causes of action for (1) fraud (against SOCO/Dartt); (2) negligent misrepresentation (against SOCO/Dartt); (3) invasion of privacy Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3066665  43 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SC COMMERCIAL LLC VS STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD  37-2020-00036310-CU-BC-CTL (against all defendants); (4) accounting (against SC Commercial/SOCO); and (5) unfair business practices (against SC Commercial/SOCO). (ROA 128.) Cross-Complainant Vahid Sapir voluntarily dismissed his causes of action.

The alleged misrepresentations are limited to specific representations and promises. Dartt, as agent for SOCO, represented and promised: (i) if Farhadi and Vahid Sapir 'provided personal financial information on a confidential basis to SOCO, then lines of credit for product purchases by Starline and Screamline from SOCO would be established on a private and confidential basis and the private information would never be shared with others and the rights would never be assigned by SOCO or sold to anyone;' (ii) 'SOCO and Dartt would provide fuel products at discounts below other providers;' (iii) ensure accounting for same; and (iv) provide better service at lower prices.

In 2018, SOCO assigned/sold the information and accounts to Cross-Defendant SC Commercial, LLC (SCC). Dartt then served as SCC's agent.

Critically to these motions, there are no specific allegations regarding Chevron branded fuel products and whether Cross-Defendants misled the Starline Parties to believe Chevron fuel would be provided, oils, lubricants, freight and taxes and whether any failure to provide Chevron fuel caused damage to the Starline Parties' buses.

Standard on Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication In ruling on a summary judgment, the trial court must first identify the issues framed by the pleadings, since the pleadings set the boundaries of the issues to be resolved, and the materiality of disputed facts.

(Conroy v. Regents of University of Cal. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1250; Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 289-90; Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 858.) The court then determines whether the moving party has established facts justifying judgment in its favor, and if the moving party has carried its initial burden, decide whether the opposing party has demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Serri, supra, at p. 858.) The Court must 'liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.' (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) SOCO Group's Motion Opposition Objections The Starline Parties' objections to the Declaration of Jeffrey Dartt (ROA 495) are overruled. The Starline Parties' amended objections to the Declaration of Jeffrey Dartt (ROA 577) are overruled.

The Starline Parties' objections to the Declaration of Robert Kull (ROA 496) are sustained as to Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 [after 'Although all such invoicing...dealings.'] The remainder (as to No. 4) is overruled. The Starline Parties' amended objections to the Declaration of Robert Kull (ROA 580) are sustained as to Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 [after 'Although all such invoicing...dealings.'] The remainder (as to No. 4) is overruled.

The Starline Parties' objections to the Declaration of Toby Taitano (ROA 497) are overruled. The Starline Parties' amended objections to the Declaration of Toby Taitano (ROA 578) are overruled.

Reply Objections SOCO's objections to the Declaration of Kamrouz Farhadi (ROA 508) are sustained at Nos. 8 and 9. The remainder are overruled.

SOCO's objections to the Declaration of Mohammed Ghods (ROA 508) are moot in light of the Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3066665  43 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SC COMMERCIAL LLC VS STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD  37-2020-00036310-CU-BC-CTL continuance to conduct discovery.

The Starline Parties' objections to the Notice of Motion and Amended Separate Statement (ROA 579) are overruled. The Court exercises its discretion to consider the Amended Separate Statement. (See, Truong v. Glasser (2009) 181 Cal.App.4th 102, 118 (finding even if additional headings had been required, the court's power to deny summary judgment on the basis of failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350 is discretionary, not mandatory).) The Starline Parties do not dispute the only changes made were to the wording of the statement of the issues so that they conform to the notice and not to any evidence cited. To the extent the Starline Parties object to the separate statement for failure to include all material facts as argued in the original opposition (ROA 493 – Opp., at p. 10:12-11:10), the objection is overruled in light of the recent Fourth District, Division Three decision of Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. (Dec. 5, 2023, No. G062736) 2023 WL 8430581, at * 5-7, ruling the laws and rules regarding separate statements do not require every fact to be included in the separate statement and do not require incidental and background facts.

The Court notes SOCO's joinder to SCC's reply objections and refers to the discussion below regarding these objections.

Discussion The Court is required to deny the motion. C.C.P. section 437c(a)(2) requires notice of the motion 'and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before' the hearing.

Here, the original opposition raises the fact 32 deposition pages from the depositions of Kamrouz Farhadi and Shoeleh Noonoosh Sapir were omitted from SOCO's moving evidence. (ROA 493 - Opp., at p. 12:1-11.) In reply, SOCO provides two pages of Mr. Farhadi's deposition, but does not address the remaining omitted deposition pages. The summary judgment procedure is statutory and 'technical compliance with the procedures of [C.C.P.] section 437c is required to ensure there is no infringement of a litigant's hallowed right to have a dispute settled by a jury of his or her peers.' (Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 389, 395.) It was burdensome enough for the Court to cross-check the pages Starline claimed were omitted from the exhibits; it would be unduly burdensome and a waste of judicial resources for the Court to determine whether or not SOCO met its initial burden based on an incomplete record. As not all of the 'supporting papers' were served on the Starline Parties 75-days before the hearing, the Court is precluded from summarily entering judgment and adjudication.

In light of this ruling, the Starline Parties' request the Court deny the motion under C.C.P. section 437c(h) is moot.

Even if the Court considers the merits, the motion's denial is warranted.

On Issue 1, SOCO did not meet its initial burden. The XC alleges promissory fraud; not intentional misrepresentation. Promissory fraud is a subspecies of the action for fraud and deceit. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) Here, SOCO identified the first cause of action and framed the notice, separate statement and its discussion based on the elements of intentional misrepresentation. Although similar, the causes of action are different. (Cf., (Aton Center, Inc. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1245 [elements of intentional misrepresentation].) On Issue 2/Negligent Misrepresentation, SOCO did not meet its initial burden. The separate statement refers to the Undisputed Material Facts cited in support of an intentional misrepresentation claim/issue, and not negligent misrepresentation. (ROA 568 – Amended Separate Statement, pp. 6:9-7:13.) On Issue 3/Invasion of Privacy, SOCO did not meet its initial burden. As discussed infra, SOCO did not assess the elements of an invasion of privacy claim. (Mezger v. Bick (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 76, 86, rev.

denied (Oct. 13, 2021).) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3066665  43 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SC COMMERCIAL LLC VS STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD  37-2020-00036310-CU-BC-CTL On Issue 4/Accounting, SOCO did not meet its initial burden. An action for accounting requires: (i) that a relationship exists between the plaintiff and defendant that requires an accounting; and (ii) that some balance is due to the plaintiff that can only be ascertained by an accounting. (Sass v. Cohen (2020) 10 Cal.5th 861, 869.) All that is required is 'some relationship' exists that requires an accounting. (Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, 179–180.) The right to an accounting can arise from the possession by the defendant of money or property which, because of the defendant's relationship with the plaintiff, the defendant is obliged to surrender. (Ibid.) Here, SOCO maintains Cross-Complainants 'had no relationship with [SOCO] that requires an accounting.' (UMF 18.) As alleged and as the evidence shows, the parties had a relationship wherein Cross-Complainants paid SOCO and SOCO provided Cross-Complainants with fuel. An action for accounting is a 'means of discovery' and the plaintiff's lack of knowledge drives the need for discovery. (Sass, supra.) SOCO did not 'dispose' of this cause of action.

On Issue 5/Unfair Business Practices, disputed facts exist as to whether SOCO willfully misrepresented charges for services it rendered and caused multiple entities to publish, advertise and use the 'SC Fuels' name to confuse Cross-Complainants and others. The evidence that creates this dispute includes the Declaration of Kamrouz Farhadi, at ¶¶ 5, 8 & Ex. A-D.

As to Issue 6/Damages, the separate statement again refers to other Undisputed Material Facts, including one cited in support of an intentional misrepresentation claim. (ROA 568 – UMF 28.) As to Issue 7/Statute of Limitations, SOCO is not entitled to adjudication as a matter of law. As raised in the original opposition, SOCO did not properly plead in its Answer the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations for each cause of action. (ROA 493, a p. 18:9-19 (explaining SOCO invokes different legal authority for the statute of limitations in the Answer and motion, bases affirmative defenses on superseded case law and did not plead the defense as to the accounting cause of action).) In reply, SOCO does not respond to these arguments and appears to concede the affirmative defenses are not all alleged. (ROA 602 - Supp. Reply, at p. 5, fn. 5.) Thus, the Court is precluded from ordering adjudication of these issues.

Conclusion For these reasons, SOCO's motion is DENIED in its entirety.

SC Commercial and Dartt's Motion Requests for Judicial Notice SCC/Dartt's request for judicial notice are granted and notice will be taken to the extent permitted.

Opposition Objections The Starline Parties' objections to the Declaration of Jeffrey Dartt (ROA 585) are overruled.

The Starline Parties' objections to the Declaration of Robert Risbrough (ROA 586) are overruled as to No. 1 and sustained at No. 2.

The Starline Parties' objections to the Declaration of Toby Taitano (ROA 587) are overruled.

Reply Objections The objections to the Declaration of Kamrouz Farhadi (ROA 596) are sustained as to No. 5. The remainder are overruled.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3066665  43 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SC COMMERCIAL LLC VS STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD  37-2020-00036310-CU-BC-CTL The objections to the Declaration of Sandra Vivonia (ROA 597) are sustained as, technically, her declaration was not offered in support of the opposition to SCC/Dartt's motion. However, the Court notes the declaration concerned the discovery issues. As discussed below, any request to deny or continue the motion under C.C.P. section 437c(h) is denied.

The objections to the Declaration of Mohammed Ghods (ROA 598) are overruled.

The objections to the Amended Appendix (ROA 599) are overruled.

The objections to the Declaration of Noonoosh Sapir (ROA 600) are overruled.

C.C.P. § 437c(h) The Court declines to deny the motion under section 437c(h) or to allow another continuance to the extent the Starline Parties impliedly request one. The Court already continued this motion once – over six months ago - to allow for more discovery and the Starline Parties did not request another continuance prior to filing the supplemental opposition. The Starline Parties fail to show, specifically, what documents, answers and information they purportedly do not have. The Court notes there are no motions to compel discovery responses/answers on calendar. Several items of documents/information Starline claims not to have is also beyond the scope of the XC as there are no allegations Cross-Defendants misrepresented the type of fuel, the cost of fuel, freight costs and 'other charges.' Discussion Claims Against Dartt – Issues 1-3 Issue 1 - First Cause of Action: Fraud The first cause of action alleges 'Fraud – [Promise Without Intent to Perform & Concealment.' 'A promise to do something necessarily implies the intention to perform; hence, where a promise is made without such intention, there is an implied misrepresentation of fact that may be actionable fraud.' (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) The elements of promissory fraud (i.e., of fraud or deceit based on a promise made without any intention of performing it) are: (i) a promise made regarding a material fact without any intention of performing it; (ii) the existence of the intent not to perform at the time the promise was made; (iii) intent to deceive or induce the promisee to enter into a transaction; (iv) reasonable reliance by the promisee; (v) nonperformance by the party making the promise; and (vi) resulting damage to the promise. (Behnke v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1453.) The XC alleges in 2014, SOCO/Dartt represented 'if Farhadi and Vahid Sapir 'provided personal financial information on a confidential basis to SOCO, then lines of credit for product purchases by Starline and Screamline from SOCO would be established on a private and confidential basis and the private information would never be shared with others and the rights would never be assigned by SOCO or sold to anyone.' (XC, at ¶ 14.) Here, Dartt did not meet his initial burden. This allegation is not addressed in the memorandum or separate statement. There is no discussion on whether or not Dartt did or did not make this representation. (See, California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Dist.

(2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1272, 1296–1297, rev. denied (Mar. 29, 2023) [the so-called 'golden rule' of summary judgment, which is this: '[I]f it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.']; see also, Teselle v. Mcloughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, 173 (ignoring allegations is a 'fatal flaw' in a motion for summary judgment).) This alone requires the Court to deny adjudication as to Issue 1 as adjudication 'shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action.' (C.C.P., § 437c(f)(1).) Notwithstanding, other reasons exist to deny Issue 1.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3066665  43 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SC COMMERCIAL LLC VS STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD  37-2020-00036310-CU-BC-CTL The XC alleges SOCO/Dartt represented they 'would ensure accounting for [fuel products] is accurate...' (XC, at ¶ 14.) Here, Dartt did not meet his initial burden. This allegation is not addressed in the memorandum or separate statement. There is no discussion on whether or not Dartt did or did not make this representation.

The XC alleges SOCO/Dartt represented they would 'provide better service at lower prices to Starline and Screamline.' (XC, at ¶ 14.) Disputed facts exist as to this allegation. The evidence that creates this dispute includes the Declaration of Kamrouz Farhadi, at ¶ 3.

With regard to Dartt's argument regarding the statute of limitations, no evidence is cited in support of it or discussed in the separate statement.

Thus, adjudication as to Issue 1 is DENIED.

Issue 2 - Second Cause of Action: Negligent Misrepresentation For the second cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, Dartt argues the alleged statements in the second cause of action are puffery that cannot form the basis of a claim for misrepresentation or fraud. (See, Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 111 ['If [an] assertion ... is merely a statement of opinion-mere 'puffing'-[a defendant] cannot be held liable for its falsity.'].) Representations of opinion, particularly involving matters of value, are ordinarily not actionable representations of fact. (Graham v. Bank of America, N.A. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 606–607.) A representation is an opinion 'if it expresses only (a) the belief of the maker, without certainty, as to the existence of a fact; or (b) his judgment as to quality, value ... or other matters of judgment.' (Ibid., (internal quotations omitted).) Here, Dartt met his burden the alleged statements are not actionable. Even if Dartt promised he would never share private information, provide discounts, ensure accurate accounting and provide better service, these are opinions expressing his judgment as to the quality and value of what SOCO could offer. Dartt also provided evidence that during the SOCO/SCC relationship, Cross-Complainants did not complain about pricing, accounting for products or service. (UMF 19.) In opposition, the Starline Parties did not address Dartt's position at all, impliedly conceding on the merits. (Opp., at p. 16:10-25.) Thus, adjudication as to Issue 2 is GRANTED.

Issue 3 - Third Cause of Action: Invasion of Privacy For the third cause of action for invasion of privacy, the XC alleges SOCO, with Dartt's knowledge and participation, assigned and transferred Cross-Complainants' private and confidential information on secret terms and without their knowledge or consent. (XC, at ¶ 25.) The legal basis for this claim is unclear. SCC assesses it as a public disclosure of private facts cause of action while the Starline Parties insinuate – but do not confirm – it is an intrusion into private affairs cause of action. Notwithstanding, Dartt has not met its initial burden.

The elements of invasion of privacy are intrusion into a private place, conversation, or matter, in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person. (Mezger v. Bick (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 76, 86, rev.

denied (Oct. 13, 2021).) To determine 'offensiveness,' several factors are considered. (Id., at p. 86-87.) Actionable invasions of privacy must be sufficiently serious in their nature, scope and actual or potential impact to constitute an egregious breach of the social norms underlying the privacy right. (Id., at p. 87.) The 'extent and gravity of the invasion is an indispensable consideration in assessing an alleged invasion of privacy.' (Ibid., citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 37.) The impact on the plaintiff's privacy rights must be more than 'slight or trivial.' (Ibid.) Here, Dartt did not address any of these elements.

In addition, the moving papers cite James v. Screen Gems, Inc. (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 650 for the statement only 'natural people, and not corporations, may sue on a claim.' James does not state this.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3066665  43 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SC COMMERCIAL LLC VS STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD  37-2020-00036310-CU-BC-CTL Rather, it rules, the right of privacy cannot be asserted by anyone other than whose privacy is invaded.

(James, supra, at p. 653 (ruling widow of Jesse James' son could not claim invasion of his privacy for him).) In reply, SCC cited to Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 808, 821, which addresses whether a union could assert an invasion of privacy claim for one of its members and the court said no. 'It is well settled that the right of privacy is purely a personal one; it cannot be asserted by anyone other than the person whose privacy has been invaded, that is, plaintiff must plead and prove that his privacy has been invaded.' These cases do not rule corporations cannot sue for an invasion of privacy. (Cf., SCC Acquisitions, Inc.

v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755–756 (acknowledging, while not a constitutional right, corporations do have a right to privacy).) Notwithstanding, disputed facts exist regarding the statute of limitations defense. (ROA 584 - AMF 12, 13, 14.) Thus, adjudication as to Issue 3 is DENIED.

Claims Against SCC – Issues 4-6 Issue 4 – Third Cause of Action: Invasion of Privacy For the third cause of action for invasion of privacy, the XC alleges SCC obtained, stored and used the private and confidential information of Cross-Complainants without their consent causing damage. (XC, at ¶ 26.) SCC did not meet its initial burden. Again, the legal basis for this claim is unclear and SCC did not address the elements of an invasion of privacy claim. Technically, SCC did not identify Starline as not being a 'person' in the Separate Statement. (See, UMF 30-31.) The objection to the Declaration of Robert Risbrough is sustained as the statement that none of the documents produced show there is an invoiced balance due lacks foundation and is argumentative. Whether Mr. Farhadi was damaged is not included as an issue within Issue No. 4. Thus, adjudication as to Issue 4 is DENIED.

Issue 5 – Fourth Cause of Action: Accounting For the fourth cause of action's accounting claim, SCC did not meet its initial burden. Objection No. 2 to the Declaration of Robert Risbrough is sustained as the statement that none of the documents produced show there is an invoiced balance due lacks foundation and is argumentative. SCC also cited Mrs.

Sapir's deposition testimony at p. 115:19-135:25, but this portion of testimony does not reveal a lack of a balance due. Thus, adjudication as to Issue 5 is DENIED.

Issue 6 – Fifth Cause of Action: Unfair Business Practices For the fifth cause of action of unfair business practices, the XC alleges SCC engaged in unfair business practices by willfully misrepresenting charges for services, requiring the purchase of other products in connection with the sale of its fuel products, willfully misrepresenting prices for fuel and fuel product deliveries and willfully causing multiple entities to publish, advertise and use the 'SC Fuels' name to confuse Cross-Complainants regarding the identity of the entity the were dealing with to avoid accountability to customers. (XC, at ¶ 38.) SCC did not meet its initial burden. The separate statement and the evidence cited in support do not address any of these allegations. Rather, the three facts in the separate statement concern Dartt's advisement to let him know if there were any questions or concerns related to the account, how Dartt and Taitano were not informed Cross-Claimants believed SCC did not provide fair pricing and that Dartt did not advise Cross-Claimants had to purchase a different petroleum product to receive any petroleum product. (UMF 36-38.) Thus, adjudication as to Issue 6 is DENIED.

Punitive Damages – Issue 7 As to the claim for punitive damages against Dartt, for the reasons discussed above, Dartt has not met its initial burden.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3066665  43 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SC COMMERCIAL LLC VS STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD  37-2020-00036310-CU-BC-CTL As to the claim for punitive damages against SCC, for the reasons discussed above, SCC has not met its initial burden.

Thus, adjudication as to Issue 7 is DENIED.

Conclusion For these reasons, SC Commercial/Dartt's motion is GRANTED IN PART (as to Issue 2) and DENIED IN PART (as to Issues 1 and 3-7.) Concluding Orders The Cross-Complaint's second cause of action against Jeffrey Dartt is adjudicated in favor of Jeffrey Dartt.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final order.

Cross-Defendant The SoCo Group, Inc. is ordered to serve written notice of the Court's final order on all appearing parties by December 22, 2023.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3066665  43