Motion to Vacate
MOTION NO. 2: Plaintiffs Irene Adams and West Palmyra Ltd.’s motion to compel defendant Millrock Investment Fund 1, LLC (“Millrock”) to serve verified, code-compliant further responses, without objection, to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and to produce all responsive, non-privileged documents and for monetary sanctions is CONTINUED to _______.
The rule requiring a good faith effort to meet and confer about discovery disputes “is designed to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order . . . [t]his, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.) “The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the ‘reasonable and good faith attempt’ standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, more complex discovery context, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted. In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)
Millrock contends that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently meet and confer prior to filing the Motion. On 12-15-25, Plaintiffs counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Millrock’s counsel. (Dardashti Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. C.) On 12- 22-25, Millrock responded to the letter and explained why Millrock was having difficulty understanding Plaintiffs’ requests and offered to further meet and confer regarding the Requests. (Dardashti Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. D.) Millrock states that in their Motion, Plaintiffs characterize their Requests far more narrowly than the versions they propounded on Millrock and that it is likely that if Plaintiffs met and conferred with Millrock and narrowed their Requests, as they have attempted to do in their Motion, many of the disputes identified by Plaintiffs could potentially be resolved. (Opp., 8:16-19.)
The court finds further conferences between the parties would be productive. Therefore, the parties are ordered to engage in additional attempts to meet and confer regarding the issues that remain in dispute, including a telephonic or in-person conference (not email). No later than 9 court days prior to the continued hearing, the parties are to file a Joint Statement which shall (1) describe the parties’ attempts to meet and confer pursuant to this order, (2) identify each discovery request that remains in dispute, and (3) each party’s position on the discovery request that remains in dispute.
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?”
Plaintiffs to give notice. 3 24-01393857 Motion to Vacate
Bank Of America, N.A. Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter vs. Chadha Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation of the Parties is DENIED without prejudice.
The Court’s 6/18/26 Minute Order stated in part the following:
“... Plaintiff has sufficiently established Defendant’s breach of the settlement agreement and the Court intends to enter judgment on the parties’ settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. [¶] However, the amount of judgment to be entered is unclear to the Court, since it appears Defendant resumed payments after allegedly ceasing payments in August 2026, and Plaintiff has not submitted a reply brief. [¶] Plaintiff’s counsel shall file and serve a reply declaration, not to exceed five pages, no later than 6/26/26, stating what the total amount to be entered for judgment is as of the present date, and explaining the basis for their calculation. If the reply declaration is not timely filed, the motion will be denied without prejudice.”
As of 6/29/26, Plaintiff’s counsel has not submitted the required reply declaration stating the updated amount of judgment to be entered. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice. The parties are encouraged to informally resolve this issue if possible. However, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion with an updated judgment amount if necessary. 4 24-01395117 Motion to Consolidate
Leming vs. Huntington Plaintiff Carole Leming’s Motion to Consolidate is DENIED without Landmark Senior Adult prejudice. Community Association Plaintiff moves to consolidate two matters: (1) Carole Leming vs. Huntington Landmark Senior Adult Community Association, OSC Case No. 30-2024-01395117-CU-PO CJC (“Huntington Landmark case”); and (2) Carole Leming vs. PPM Construction,, OSC Case No. 30-2023- 01305363-CU-PA-CJC (“PPM case”). Both cases arise out of the same incident and policies.
California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1), provides: “A notice of motion to consolidate must: [¶] (A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; [¶] (B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and [¶] (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.”
California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2), provides: “The motion to consolidate: [¶] (A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case; [¶](B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and [¶] (C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.”
The motion is procedurally deficient. The notice, memorandum, declaration, and other supporting papers were filed only in the Huntington Landmark case, the highest number case. They should have been filed in the PPM case, the lowest number case, with only the notice being filed in the Huntington Landmark case. While the notice’s caption