Motion to compel form interrogatories; Motion for monetary damages
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
LINE CASE NO. CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING
9:00 24CV444665 Wilson Catalan vs. See below 1 Ford Motor Company
9:00 24CV446885 Albert O’Hara vs. Plaintiff petitions this court to compel defendant to respond to form interrogatories 2 Neelam Lopez and to award monetary damages for attorney costs. Defendant after receiving motion to compel did provide responses to form interrogatories. Plaintiff’s petition to compel defendant to respond is MOOT. Since the answer did not come until Plaintiff’s motion to compel was submitted, Plaintiff’s motion for monetary damages is GRANTED.
9:00 25CV456446 Gurdeep Saluja vs. Defendant moves this court to compel Plaintiff for Deposition and Production of 3 Hyundai Motor Documents. It appears that Defendant properly served notice on Plaintiff and America dates had been agreed upon but Plaintiff refused to appear. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to Defedant’s motion. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion for monetary damages is GRANTED.
9:00 25CV461544 Wells Fargo Bank vs. Plaintiff moves this court for a judgment on the pleadings. Defendant owes 4 Serena Marquez Plaintiff $6,183.17 on her credit card. Defendant filed no opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED
9:00 25CV465961 Mariner Finance vs. Plaintiff moves this court to deem request for admissions to be deemed admitted. 5 Vickie Hunter Plaintiff served Defendant with request for admissions on September 19, 2025, but Defendant never responded. Defendant filed no objection to Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
9:00 25CV474549 Cynthia Schwarting See below 6 et al vs. Kyle Kwong, et.al.
9:00 25CV479632 Melissa Bentz vs. See below 7 James Bentz
9:00 25CV481161 Hao Chen vs Zhipeng See below. 8 Lu
9:00 26CV493281 Vladimir Vedeneev Defendant YouTube is ordered to show cause as to why a preliminary injunction 9 vs. Roman Anin, et.al. should not be imposed. YouTube hosted a video that co-defendant Ronan Anin uploaded. A party who plays no role in an unlawful interception of a communication cannot be enjoined from publishing the resulting speech when it bears on a matter of public concern. Bartnicki vs Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001). The videos addressed the security of a global messaging platform and is a matter of public concern as evident by the massive amounts of views. The First Amendment bars any claims for injunctive relief. A preliminary injunction in this matter is DENIED.
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?”
9:00 21CV3900666 Eric Hartman et.al. vs Defendant moves this court to award attorney fees and costs. Defendant was the 10 Koshy George prevailing party. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Court seeks oral argument regarding amount of sanctions.
9:01 22CV397160 John Lam, et.al. vs Plaintiff’s attorney moves to withdraw as counsel. There is no opposition filed. 1 The Signature Plaintiff’s attorney’s motion is GRANTED. Motors, LLC
9:01 23CV423813 Absolute Resolutions Defendant moves this court for exemption from wage garnishment. No opposition 2 Investments, LLC vs was filed. Defendant claims that he needs all of his income to support his spouse Azim Uddin and his son. This court agrees. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
3