Conley vs. Kang

charges which can be intelligently met.’” (Ibid.) “Less specificity should be required of fraud claims ‘when “it appears from the nature of the allegations that the defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy,” [citation]; “[e]ven under the strict rules of common law pleading, one of the canons was that less particularity is required when the facts lie more in the knowledge of the opposite party . . . .” ’ ” (Ibid.)

Here, GenWay must necessarily possess the full facts regarding GenWay’s own records regarding the loan, as well as the calculations of overcharges and refunds/disbursements. Therefore, less specificity is required of Plaintiffs’ pleading. Plaintiffs allege the time of the alleged concealment (documents starting in April 2014), the nature of the concealment, and the damages being claimed as a result of that concealment. Thus, the Court finds that the allegations are sufficient and the Demurrer as to the fraud cause of action is OVERRULED.

GenWay is ordered to file an answer to the SAC within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.

4. 30-2025-01455873 1. Case Management Conference 2. Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record Silva vs. Ford Motor Company The unopposed motion of Strategic Legal Practices, APC to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Enrique Silva is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

On 05/07/2026, the Court continued the hearing on this motion to 06/18/2026 because Moving Counsel did not show that the moving papers were timely served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case at least 16 court days before the hearing pursuant to code. (ROA 104.) The Court continued the hearing and ordered Moving Counsel to file “proof of service of the moving papers no later than 16 court days before the continued hearing.” (Ibid.)

Based on the Court’s order and code, the proof of service needed to be filed by 05/27/2026. Moving Counsel again did not file a timely proof of service and did not establish timely service of the moving papers on the client and appearing parties. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d).)

The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving counsel to give notice.

6. 30-2024-01448151 1. Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

Conley vs. Kang The unopposed motion of attorney Jessica Williams of Sweet James LLP to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff DaVon James Conley is CONTINUED.

Moving counsel did not show proof of service of the moving papers on the client. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d).) While the declaration filed in support of the motion states that the client was served by mail, there is no proof that the client was timely served with the papers.

The hearing on the Motion is CONTINUED to July 30, 2026 at 1:30 pm in C34.

Moving Attorney shall file proof of service of the moving papers no later than 16 court days before the continued hearing.

Once proper service is established, the Court is inclined to grant the motion.

Moving Attorney to give notice of the continued hearing.

7. 30-2025-01467538 1. Motion to Compel Further Reponses to Special Interrogatories

Satterfield vs. Golden Plaintiff Patricia Satterfield (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Golden Rain Foundation of Rain Foundation of Laguna Woods (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Laguna Woods Two, Nos. 32, 36-37, 39-44, 46, 50, 52-63, 66-67, and 69-70. The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth below.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) provides that a party propounding discovery may move for an order compelling a further response if an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, or an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify the adequacy of the response, the propriety of any objections, or the failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) A party opposing discovery has an obligation to supply the basis for an objection asserted in response to discovery. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549 [party objecting to interrogatories has burden of supplying supporting evidence in response to a motion to compel].)

Although good cause need not be shown, the court must consider the objections to the interrogatories, the interrogatories themselves, the pleadings, and the contentions of the interrogating party as to the purpose and validity of the interrogatories. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 18-19.) “If the interrogatories stray too far and seek information which cannot reasonably serve the acknowledge purposes of pretrial discovery, the motion should be denied.” (Id. at p. 19.)

Interrogatory No. 32: Granted. Although the interrogatory contains subparts, they are all related to a single subject. (See, e.g., Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1290.) The reference to Interrogatory No. 4 does not violate the Code because the relevant text from Interrogatory No. 4 is quoted within interrogatory No.

32.

Interrogatory No. 36: Granted. Although Defendant’s objection was essentially based on relevance, Defendant’s opposing separate statement only argues that the interrogatory contains subparts, is compound and is not full and complete in and of itself. These arguments are not well