PETITION TO MODIFY TRUST RE: SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES
In The Matter of George J Manyik 26PR000065 and Antoinette J Manyik Family Trust
PETITION TO MODIFY TRUST RE: SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES
TENTATIVE RULING: Good cause appearing, and no objection having been made, the Petition is GRANTED. The Court will sign the Proposed Order unless an interested party appears at the hearing to object. (See Prob. Code § 1043.)
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Denise Anderson et al v. United Rental Realty, LLC 25CV001597
[1] PLAINTIFFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY [Filed 4/3/26]
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion to compel responses to the RFPs, FROGS, and SPROGS (defined below) is MOOT. The motion as to the RFAs (defined below) is DENIED. The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Within 10 calendar days of notice of entry of order, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiffs, care of their attorney of record, sanctions in the amount of $3,660. Plaintiffs are directed to provide notice of entry of order.
A. PROCEDURAL MATTER
Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Denise Anderson, Trustee of The Denise E. Anderson Trust, and Scott R. Cowan, Trustee of The Scott R. Cowan Trust (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2019.010 et. seq., 2030.210 et. seq., 2031.210 et seq., 2025.210 et seq., and 2033.280, subdivision (c),1 for an order compelling Defendant and Cross-Complainant United Rental Realty, LLC (“Defendant”) to serve verified responses to: Plaintiffs’ Second Set of (1) Requests for Production (“RFPs”); (2) Form Interrogatories—General (“FROGS”); (3) Special Interrogatories (“SPROGS”); and (4) Requests for Admission (“RFAS”) (collectively, “Subject Discovery”). Plaintiffs further move for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $3,960.
The matter originally came on for hearing on May 5, 2026 and was continued to coincide with the hearing noticed by Defendant’s filing on April 30, 2026 of a motion for relief for the failure to serve timely discovery responses to the Subject Discovery.
B. RFPS, SPROGS, AND FROGS
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?”
If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents were directed fails to serve a timely response, the responding party waives all objections and the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (§§ 2030.290, 1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.
7