Perez vs. TY Caldwell, DDS and Susan Caldwell, DDS

10 Perez vs. TY Caldwell, DDS and Susan Caldwell, DDS

2025-01463289 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

The motion by Cameron D. Coy of the Law Offices of Cameron D. Coy, to be relieved as counsel of record for J Um DDS Cypress, Inc., is granted.

Upon the signing of the order, counsel shall serve the signed order on the client and all parties that have appeared. Cameron D. Coy of the Law Offices of Cameron D. Coy will be relieved as counsel of record for J Um DDS Cypress, Inc., effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client and all parties.

The Law Offices of Cameron D. Coy shall give notice of the ruling.

OSC re. Representation of J Um DDS Cypress, Inc. is set 7-20-26 at 9:00 a.m.

11 Sitta, Paige & Associates, Inc. vs. Creative Installations, Inc.

2025-01477302 1. Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories2. Motion to Compel Production Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents

The unopposed motions by Plaintiff Sitta, Paige & Associates, Inc. dba Paige Floor Covering Specialists (“Plaintiff”) for an order compelling Defendant Creative Solutions, Inc. (“Creative”) to serve responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one, are GRANTED.

Applicable legal authority A propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to interrogatories at any time “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) By failing to serve timely responses, Defendant waived “any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Leach v. Superior Court (Markum) (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)