MOTION TO COMPEL: ANSWER/RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, ANSWER/RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY WILLIAM PARRY
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET CVPS2301795 MEDEROS VS CHAVEZ TWO FROM PLAINTIFF RUBEN MEDEROS BY MILO HOLTE, PREMIER GUNITE, INC. Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling. The Opposition filed by Plaintiff is untimely. The motion is continued to 6.26.26, Defendant to file a reply by 6.17.26. No further briefing shall be permitted.
Parties are directed to be prepared to discuss trial readiness in light of the current motion as well as the motions to compel by Plaintiff currently set for 7.17.26.
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL: ANSWER/RESPONSE TO SPECIAL CVPS2405373 REES VS PARRY INTERROGATORIES, ANSWER/RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY WILLIAM PARRY Tentative Ruling: A party may file a motion compelling a further response to requests for production if it finds that a response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) In a motion to compel a further response as to document requests, the moving party must state facts demonstrating good cause justifying the discovery sought by demonstrating relevance and specific facts justifying discovery. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) The burden to show good cause for production “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Tbg Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) Once good cause is established, the responding party has the burden to justify any objections. (Kirkland, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at 98.)
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s supplementation remains deficient. Defendant must bring another motion to compel further supplemental responses if the parties cannot resolve the matter. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Motion to Compel is MOOT.
Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1660 ($400 x 4 hours + costs).
Parties are reminded prior to filing any other discovery motion a proper meet and confer by phone, in person or teleconference is required.
The OSC re default is vacated.
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION CVPS2600273 LANDUCCI VS UCKER AND STAY PROCEEDINGS BY AIRBNB, INC. Tentative Ruling: Upon the petition/motion of a party to an agreement to arbitrate, the court must grant a petition to compel arbitration unless it finds: no written agreement to arbitrate exists; the right to compel arbitration has been waived; grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues. (CCP § 1281.2.)
A proceeding to compel arbitration is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract. (Freeman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 479.) The petition/motion to compel must set forth the provisions of the written agreement and the arbitration clause verbatim, or such provisions must be attached and incorporated by reference. (CRC rule 3.1330; see also Condee v. Longwood Mgmt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218–19.) The party seeking arbitration must prove the existence of the arbitration agreement. (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v.
Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2015) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.) The burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove any defense such as unconscionability. (Id.) “In ruling on a petition to compel arbitration, the trial court may consider evidence on factual issues relating to the threshold issue of arbitrability .... Parties may submit declarations when factual issues are tendered with a motion to compel arbitration.” (Engineers & Architects Assn. v. Community Development Dept. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 644, 653.)
In the summary proceedings on a motion to compel arbitration, “the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court's discretion, to reach a final determination.” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.)
Defendant, Airbnb, argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the scope and enforceability of the arbitration agreement based on Plaintiff, Michael’s AA with Airbnb that contains a delegation clause. The general rule is that the courts decide disputes about arbitrability unless the parties agree to delegate the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. (Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 891-892.) To be effective, the language “must be clear and unmistakable” and there must be no “contract defense such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.” (Id. at 892, 894.) This is a heightened standard of proof. (Id. at 892.)
Here, the AA, which includes a delegation clause, provides:
22.4 Agreement to Arbitrate. You and Airbnb mutually agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to these Terms of the applicability, breach, termination, validity, enforcement or interpretation