Preview
EAST BAY EXPRESS FILED ALAMEDA COUNTY By Lub CE PROOF OF PUBLICATION File Number: 22CV006890 In the matter of: Order to show cause for Change of Name ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ‘FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER: 22CV006890 Courtof California,of Alameda County Superior ; ReneC. Courthouse Davidson ipa : = 1225fallonStreet eae fh In the matter of the United States, Iam over the age of eighteen years, and I am CA 94612 Oakland, Petitioner: NANCY PERSONS: INTERESTED not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. Bert with this court filed a petition CECCHETTINI Present a decree ae CCH as follows: fora sore NANCY BETH HETTINI CECC Name: NA :VIG. BETH COURC THE N T ORDERS Y that I am a foreman or principle clerk of the printer and publisher ofthe East Bay Name ested abies matter in this inter all persons he - sea at the heats this court Express, a newspaper published in the English language in Alameda County, the if any, why ‘ause, for petition of changenan not should be ry Any rhea. person objenere State of California. thename above changes described mustoe bd the reasons! written that includes objection matter twot court he beforet days objectionat leas andmust atth appear e =~ aduled to be heard I declare that the East Bay Express, is a newspaper of general circulation as the cause whiyPEt ae ea 2022 ee RecN He s is safely If no written objection be granted, hearing, defined by the laws of the State ofCalifornia, as determined by the order of the the without a court may grant the petition Superior Court ofthe County of Alameda, dated June 12,2008, in the action NOTICEOFHEARING: 21 1225 in Dept. #17, A.M. 200sat 11:00 entitled “In the Matter of the Petition of Hal Brody to Have the Standing of East Se os CA 94612 Oakland, . Street, Fallon MAR Bay Express as a Newspaper of General Circulation Ascertained and Established” é this Show Order'To Cause be shall e : a week for four suceei Mea anleast once Case Number RG08379734. Said order provides that: “The Petition ofHal Brody date prior to the on 2 set for hearing weeks a, of gen newspaper in the following fetition to Ascertain and Establish Standing of East Bay Express as a Newspaper of in printed circulation, Express, East Bay this county: General Circulation isGRANTED.” Said order has not been revoked. Alameda California. County, 14,2022 February Dated: signed dgeoae uper court Superioru ; | I declare that the notice, a printed copy ofwhich isannexed hereto, has been tesH fed a 3/9 3/2, 2/16, 2/23, Dates: of 2022 published in each regular and entire issue of the East Bay Express and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates. to-wit: February 16, 23,March 2, 9 of 2022. I certify(or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing istrue and correct. Executed at Oakland, California. On this 09 day of March, 2022 py Signaturé teaSe 2 Date EAST BAY EXPRESS 675 37% St,Unit15, Oakland, CA 94609
Related Contentin Alameda County
Case
CITIBANK N.A. vs JOHNSON
Jul 12, 2024 |Tara M. Flanagan |Civil Limited (Collections Case - Seller Pla...) |Civil Limited (Collections Case - Seller Pla...) |24CV083178
Case
CAPITAL ONE N.A. vs SUNDIANG
Jul 10, 2024 |Tara M. Flanagan |Civil Limited (Collections Case - Purchased ...) |Civil Limited (Collections Case - Purchased ...) |24CV082853
Case
DISCOVER BANK vs HARRIS
Jul 03, 2024 |Tara M. Flanagan |Civil Limited (Collections Case - Seller Pla...) |Civil Limited (Collections Case - Seller Pla...) |24CV082608
Case
BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE vs KLOPFENSTEIN
Jul 11, 2024 |Tara M. Flanagan |Civil Limited (Collections Case - Seller Pla...) |Civil Limited (Collections Case - Seller Pla...) |24CV083070
Case
MCLEAN vs RODGERS, III, et al.
Jul 12, 2024 |Joscelyn C. Jones |Civil Unlimited (Contractual Fraud) |Civil Unlimited (Contractual Fraud) |24CV083264
Case
24CV082723
24CV082723
Case
MENERA vs CARDENAS MARKETS LLC., et al.
Jul 16, 2024 |Brad Seligman |Civil Unlimited (Other Employment Complaint Case) |Civil Unlimited (Other Employment Complaint Case) |24CV083509
Case
WHITESIDE vs ROBERTS
Mar 19, 2024 |Nikki Clark |Family Law (Child Custody) |Family Law (Child Custody) |24FL068321
Case
24CV083024
24CV083024
Ruling
REYES vs NSIBUKA, et al.
Jul 16, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |23CV041625
23CV041625: REYES vs NSIBUKA, et al. 07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Musa Nsibuka (Defendant) in Department 16Tentative Ruling - 07/12/2024 Somnath Raj ChatterjeeThe motion to compel arbitration is withdrawn.Appearances are unnecessary.
Ruling
KHAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARL...
Jul 16, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Other Employment Complaint Case) |24CV063415
24CV063415: KHAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs BAY AREA COMMUNITY HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by BayArea Community Health, a California nonprofit corporation (Defendant) in Department 21Tentative Ruling - 07/12/2024 Noël WiseThe Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by BayArea Community Health, a California nonprofit corporation on 06/13/2024 is Granted in Part.The Motion of defendant to strike PAGA subsequent violation is granted with LEAVE TOAMEND.BACKGROUNDPlaintiff asserts claims as an individual, as representative of a putative class, and as agent andproxy of the LWDA under the PAGA.Before 7/1/24, Labor Code 2699(f)(2) provided for increased penalties for “subsequentviolations.” Plaintiff seeks penalties under the based on “subsequent” violations of the LaborCode.Defendant seeks to strike the claims for penalties based on “subsequent” violations. Defendantargues that there must be notice of a prior violation before there can be a “subsequent” violationand that there was no prior notice.LABOR CODE 2699(f) HAS BEEN AMENDEDOn 7/1/24, Labor Code 2699(f)(2) was amended. The legislature removed the text that there wereincreased penalties for a “subsequent violation.” The legislature stated that there are nowincreased penalties if “(i) Within the five years preceding the alleged violation, the agency or anycourt issued a finding or determination to the employer that its policy or practice giving rise tothe violation was unlawful. [OR] (ii) The court determines that the employer's conduct givingrise to the violation was malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive.” (Stats.2024, c. 44 (A.B.2288), § 1,eff. July 1, 2024.)The amendment to Labor Code 2699(f)(2) does not apply to the claims asserted in this case.Labor Code 2699(v)(1) states: “the amendments made to this section by the act adding thissubdivision shall apply to a civil action brought on or after June 19, 2024.”APPLICATION OF LABOR CODE 2699(f)(2) AS IN EFFECT WHEN CASE FILEDThis case was filed before 7/1/24. Before 7/1/24, Labor Code 2699(f)(2) stated: “If, at the time of SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV063415: KHAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs BAY AREA COMMUNITY HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION 07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by BayArea Community Health, a California nonprofit corporation (Defendant) in Department 21the alleged violation, the person employs one or more employees, the civil penalty is onehundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation andtwo hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequentviolation.”California law is clear that there is no “subsequent violation” under pre-7/1/24, Labor Code2699(f)(2) section 2699(f)(2) “unless ... the Labor Commission or a court notified Alaska that itwas in violation of the Labor Code.” (Gunther v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th334, 356.) (See also Amaral v. Cintas Corp. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1209.)The motion to strike is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff may amend, ifpossible, to allege that before plaintiff sent the PAGA notice letter or filed this lawsuit that theLabor Commission or a court notified defendant that it was in violation of any particular sectionof the Labor Code.CASE MANAGEMENTThe court does not address or decide the issue of whether the claims of the LWDA that areasserted in this case are limited to the claims arising in the statutes of limitations period beforethe filing of complaint (Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2009)180 Cal.App.4th 210, 227 [“a cause of action is framed by the facts in existence when theunderlying complaint is filed”]; whether the LWDA’s claims includes alleged Labor Codeviolations arising after the filing of the complaint; or whether plaintiff as agent and proxy of theLWDA may or must seek leave to file a supplemental complaint to assert claims arising after thefiling of the complaint on 6/18/24 or after 7/1/24 (Hebert v. Los Angeles Raiders, Ltd. (1991) 23Cal.App.4th 414, 426; Flood v. Simpson (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 644, 647).PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notifyopposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the court’s website:www.alameda.courts.ca.gov.If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, “parties to appear,”please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time:https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21 . If no party has contested thetentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.
Ruling
22CV012970
Jul 16, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Other Non-Personal Injury/Pro...) |22CV012970
22CV012970: QUINTO vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 07/16/2024 Initial Case Management Conference in Department 23Tentative Ruling - 07/15/2024 Michael MarkmanParties to Appear:Join ZoomGov Meetinghttps://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16061942036Meeting ID: 160 6194 2036---One tap mobile+16692545252,,16061942036# US (San Jose)+14154494000,,16061942036# US (US Spanish Line)
Ruling
NORSWORTHY vs HUNGRY MARKETPLACE, INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION...
Jul 16, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Wrongful Termination) |23CV027464
23CV027464: NORSWORTHY vs HUNGRY MARKETPLACE, INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 07/16/2024 Complex Determination Hearing in Department 21Tentative Ruling - 07/16/2024 Noël WiseCOMPLEX DETERMINATIONThe Court designates this case as complex pursuant to Rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rulesof Court. Counsel are advised to be familiar with the Alameda County Local Rules concerningcomplex litigation, including Rule 3.250 et seq. An order assigning the case to a judge and aninitial case management order will be issued.COMPLEX CASE FEESPursuant to Government Code section 70616, any non-exempt party who has appeared in theaction but has not paid the complex case fee is required to pay the fee within ten days of thefiling of this order. The complex case fee is $1,000 for each plaintiff or group of plaintiffsappearing together and $1,000 PER PARTY for each defendant, intervenor, respondent or otheradverse party, whether filing separately or jointly, up to a maximum of $18,000 for all adverseparties. All payments must identify on whose behalf the fee is submitted. Please submit paymentto the attention of the Complex Litigation Clerk located in the Civil Division at the Rene C.Davidson Courthouse, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94612. Please make check(s) payable tothe Clerk of the Superior Court. Documents may continue to be filed as allowed under LocalRule 1.9. Note that for those admitted pro hac vice, there is also an annual fee. (Gov't Codesection 70617.)PROCEDURESCalendar information, filings, and tentative rulings are available to the public athttp://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/. All counsel are expected to be familiar and tocomply with pertinent provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the California Rules of Court,the Alameda County Superior Court Local Rules and the procedures outlined on the domain webpage of the assigned department.SERVICE OF THIS ORDERCounsel for plaintiff(s) shall have a continuing obligation to serve a copy of this order on newlyjoined parties defendant not listed on the proof of service of this order and file proof of service.Each party defendant joining any third party cross-defendant shall have a continuing duty toserve a copy of this order on newly joined cross-defendants and to file proof of service.Pursuant to Government Code Sections 70616(a) and 70616(b), a single complex fee of onethousand dollars ($1,000.00) must be paid on behalf of all plaintiffs. For defendants, a complexfee of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) must be paid for each defendant, intervenor, respondent SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV027464: NORSWORTHY vs HUNGRY MARKETPLACE, INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 07/16/2024 Complex Determination Hearing in Department 21or adverse party, not to exceed, for each separate case number, a total of eighteen thousanddollars ($18,000.00), collected from all defendants, intervenors, respondents, or adverse parties.All such fees are ordered to be paid to Alameda Superior Court, within 10 days of service of thisorder.This case is hereby determined to be complex within the meaning of Rule 3.400 of the CaliforniaRules of Court.The case is ordered reassigned to Judge Michael Markman in Department 23 at the Rene C.Davidson Courthouse for all further proceedings and for all purposes.The case is ordered stayed until the Initial Status Conference date. Notice of Initial StatusConference is to be given by the Clerk in Department 23. No responsive pleadings may be fileduntil further order of the Court. Parties may file a Notice of Appearance in lieu of an Answer orother responsive pleading. The filing of a Notice of Appearance shall not constitute a generalappearance, and shall not waive any substantive or procedural challenge to the complaint.Nothing herein stays the time for filing Affidavit of Prejudice pursuant to Code of CivilProcedure section 170.6.Pursuant to Government Code section 70616 subdivisions (a) and (b), each party is ordered topay $1,000.00 for complex fees, payable to Alameda County Superior Court, within ten (10)calendar days of service of this order.Any party objecting to the complex designation must file an objection with proof of service inDepartment 24 within ten (10) days of service of this minute order. Any response to theobjection must be filed in Department 24 within seven (7) days of service of the objection. ThisCourt will make its ruling on the submitted pleadings.Order has been filed.PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notifyopposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the court’s website:www.alameda.courts.ca.gov.If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, “parties to appear,”please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time:https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21 . If no party has contested thetentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.Clerk is directed to serve copies of this order, with proof of service, to counsel and to self-represented parties of record.
Ruling
DORSEY vs UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.
Jul 12, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Motor Vehicle - Personal Inju...) |22CV019992
22CV019992: DORSEY vs UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al. 07/12/2024 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate filed by Olivia Patino (Defendant) in Department 520Tentative Ruling - 07/10/2024 Julia SpainThe Motion re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND DEFENDANT OLIVIA PATINOs MOTION TOCONSOLIDATE ACTIONS AND TO STAY ACTIONS PENDING CONCLUSION OFARBITRATION AND THE CRIMINAL MATTER filed by Olivia Patino on 04/12/2024 isGranted.Defendant Olivia Patino’s (“Patino”) Unopposed Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED becausethe cases to be consolidated involve the same two-vehicle accident that took place on July 22,2022, and therefore involve common questions of fact and law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048.) Basedon a review of the pleadings at issue, the Court concludes that consolidation would promotejudicial economy, prevent unnecessary delay for the litigants involved, and thereby serve theinterests of justice.On July 2, 2024, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC and Rasier-CA, LLC (“UberDefendants”) filed a Conditional Non-Opposition indicating that they are not opposed to theconsolidation of Patino’s case (Ekrami v. Patino Case No. 23CV028072) with the lead action(Dorsey v. Uber Case No. 22CV019992), but would oppose the consolidation of Plaintiffs JamesNolan Thompson, Grayson Iller and Elizabeth Mountz’s claims (Case Nos. 23CV034718;23CV038431 and 23CV056016) against Uber Defendants because those claims are presentlyordered to binding arbitration. (Non-Opp. p.2: 21-24.)Patino’s Motion to Consolidate Ekrami v. Patino Case No. 23CV028072 with the lead caseDorsey v. Uber Case No. 22CV019992, and to stay actions pending the conclusion of arbitrationin the related cases and the criminal matter is therefore granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048.)NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on Friday July12, 2024 unless, by no later than 4:00 p.m. on Thursday July 11, 2024, a party to the actionnotifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposingcounsel or self- represented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting thistentative ruling.The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the casename], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify thespecific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants arecord of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privatelyretained court reporter must also participate via video conference. His/Her email must beprovided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV019992: DORSEY vs UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al. 07/12/2024 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate filed by Olivia Patino (Defendant) in Department 520ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTEVIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in thevideo proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party maygive email notice he/she will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all othercounsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.
Ruling
KANANI, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CO...
Jul 10, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Breach of Rental/Lease Contra...) |23CV030139
23CV030139: KANANI, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/10/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance of Defendant GM'sPerson(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) of Records; filed by Dipti Kanani (Plaintiff) + in Department 19Tentative Ruling - 07/02/2024 Joscelyn JonesThe Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance of Defendant GM's Person(s) MostQualified and Custodian(s) of Records; filed by Dipti Kanani (Plaintiff) + scheduled for07/10/2024 is continued to 07/15/2024 at 03:00 PM in Department 19 at Rene C. DavidsonCourthouse .Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance of Defendant General Motors LLC's PersonMost Qualified and Custodian of Records and Request for Sanctions is CONTINUED to July 15,2024 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 19, to be heard at the same time as Plaintiffs' Motion to CompelFurther Responses to Request for Production Set One and Request for Sanctions.
Ruling
JENNINGS vs BAYSIDE COURT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.
Jul 16, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Quiet Title) |22CV020739
22CV020739: JENNINGS vs BAYSIDE COURT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6) in Department 16Tentative Ruling - 07/16/2024 Somnath Raj ChatterjeeParties to appear.PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE HEARING/CONFERENCE WILL BE IN-PERSONWITH THE OPTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY. COUNSEL AND PARTIES MAY APPEAREITHER IN-PERSON IN DEPARTMENT 16 AT THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ORBY REMOTELY THROUGH THE ZOOM PLATFORM. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATIONFOR DEPARTMENT 16 IS BELOW.Join ZoomGov Meetinghttps://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16024053017Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017One tap mobile+16692545252,,16024053017# US (San Jose)+16692161590,,16024053017# US (San Jose)---Dial by your location• +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)• +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose)• +1 415 449 4000 US (US Spanish Line)• +1 646 828 7666 US (New York)• +1 646 964 1167 US (US Spanish Line)• +1 551 285 1373 US (New Jersey)• 833 568 8864 US Toll-freeMeeting ID: 160 2405 3017Find your local number: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/u/afHtSjITt---Join by SIP• 16024053017@sip.zoomgov.com---Join by H.323• 161.199.138.10 (US West)• 161.199.136.10 (US East)Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017
Ruling
PRIM vs AUTOCAR, LLC, et al.
Jul 18, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Motor Vehicle - Personal Inju...) |23CV025950
23CV025950: PRIM vs AUTOCAR, LLC, et al.07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum for Production of Record of Jen Tellier, Psy.D. RE Plaintiff Damian Prim; filed by Damian Prim (Plaintiff) in Department 24Tentative Ruling - 07/15/2024 Rebekah EvensonThe Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum for the Disclosure of the Mental HealthcareRecords of Plaintiff Damian Prim filed by Damian Prim on 05/10/2024 is Dropped.The hearing in this matter is DROPPED pursuant to the stipulations of counsel on 7/11/24.
Document
Johnson VS Armored Autogroup, Inc.
Feb 28, 2013 |Winifred Younge Smith |Other PI/PD/WD Tort |Civil Unlimited (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |RG13669270
Document
DEGRUY vs THOMAS, et al.
Jul 11, 2024 |Rebekah B. Evenson |Civil Unlimited (Medical Malpractice - Physici...) |Civil Unlimited (Medical Malpractice - Physici...) |24CV083131
Document
KEYHANI, AN INDIVIDUAL vs HERNANDEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al.
Jul 08, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Motor Vehicle - Personal Inju...) |Civil Unlimited (Motor Vehicle - Personal Inju...) |24CV082596
Document
SAN LORENZO VILLAGE HOMES ASSOCIATION vs PINEDO
Jul 09, 2024 |Rebekah B. Evenson |Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) |Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) |24CV082748
Document
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs GARNICA
Jul 16, 2024 |Tara M. Flanagan |Civil Limited (Collections Case - Purchased ...) |Civil Limited (Collections Case - Purchased ...) |24CV083474
Document
Johnson VS Armored Autogroup, Inc.
Feb 28, 2013 |Winifred Younge Smith |Other PI/PD/WD Tort |Civil Unlimited (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |RG13669270
Document
TD BANK USA, N.A. vs MARINESE
Jul 11, 2024 |Civil Limited (Other Promissory Note/Collect...) |Civil Limited (Other Promissory Note/Collect...) |24CV083083
Document
AAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION vs WILLIAM...
Jul 15, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Interpleader) |Civil Unlimited (Interpleader) |24CV083558
