ALEXANDER XUE VS. JUNIPER CAFE, LLC

Matter on calendar for Tuesday, July 07, 2026, Line 6, PLAINTIFF ALEXANDER XUE's Second Amended Notice Of Motion To Compel Further Responses To Plaintiffs Form Interrogatories Set One And For Sanctions Filed By Plaintiff Xue, Alexander.

1 - Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, is DENIED.

The record shows that the court initially set this case for trial for February 17, 2026. The parties agreed to continue the trial date to April 20, 2026. The parties also apparently agreed that the discovery cutoff would be measured from this date. On April 20, 2026, the court continued the trial until May 4, 2026. The court did not state whether the discovery cutoff date tracked the May trial date. On May 4, 2026, the court vacated the trial date.

In Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 247, the court explains that a mistrial, new trial or reversal of judgment on appeal will automatically restart the time limitations on discovery. Discovery is reopened and the "cut-off" dates are thereafter measured from the date set for retrial. The court further noted that: "In the context of an action that has not yet proceeded to trial or otherwise resulted in a dispositive judgment, the phrase 'date initially set for the trial of the action' (Code Civ. Proc., 2024, subd. (a)) is unambiguous. In such instance, it plainly refers to the first date set for trial of the action. Thus, the statute expressly states that continuance or postponement of that date will not operate to reopen discovery."

Here, plaintiff's service of the form interrogatories on May 4, 2026, was untimely whether the court measures the initial trial date from April 20, 2026, or May 4, 2026. This case has yet to proceed to trial or result in a judgment. There is no authority holding that vacating a trial date in such circumstances will restart the time limitations. The vacation of the trial date is a "postponement of the trial date [that] does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings." (CCP 2024.020(b).)

The court concludes that plaintiff failed to act with substantial justification. Plaintiff shall remit $1,500 as reasonable sanctions to defendant within 20 days of notice of entry of this order.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CM). | |