Motion to Continue Trial
$505,789.25. Respondent's competing motion to vacate, or in the alternative, correct appraisal award contains two short paragraphs of generalized, unsupported argument. Where a party fails to support arguments with specific facts or evidence, those arguments may be deemed waived. Arguments must be presented in the motion itself, not raised solely through declaration evidence. (See, e.g., Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Assocs., Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 931, 934-935 [arguments not raised in the motion are forfeited]; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b) [stating that the supporting memorandum "must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced."].)
Respondent's motion does not adequately allege the sort of fraud or other grounds for invalidity which would enable the Court to make some other correction. The allegations made are, as Petitioner asserts, precisely the sort for which judicial review is unavailable. Respondent's motion to vacate, or in the alternative, correct appraisal award is GRANTED for the arithmetic error and the amount is modified to $505,789.25.
CV-24-008226 - MEDINA, JOHN JR vs BAY CITIES PAVING & GRADING INC - Motion to Continue Trial - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court has questions.
CV-24-008540 - TESORO HOMES INC vs BELSERA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission - DENIED.
On April 27, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to compel further responses to eleven requests for admission arguing that the responses are unverified and that many are evasive or incomplete, particularly where Plaintiff fails to identify any document supporting its response. Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further verified responses, without objections.
On June 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff argues the parties' meet and confer was not sufficient because the motion contains arguments not addressed during the meet and confer. Plaintiff states that it attempted to serve the verifications on March 9, 2026, just after the parties meet and confer phone call, but inadvertently attached the wrong document. The verifications were served on April 24, 2026, three days before Defendant filed its motion. Plaintiff also argues that the separate statement Defendant submitted is improper. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's separate statement contains paraphrased requests and flattened responses instead of the verbatim text. Plaintiff also argues that its responses are sufficient because Plaintiff answered each request and because no rule requires Plaintiff to support its responses with documents.
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?”
On June 29, 2026, Defendant filed a reply which largely argues that Plaintiff may not provide both objections and a response to a request for admission. Defendant argued that it does not contend that Plaintiff must identify supporting documents. As to the separate statement, Defendant argues that the separate statement it submitted is not an issue because Defendant also served the original requests and responses attached as Exhibit A to the April 28, 2026 Supplemental Declaration of Todd Elliott.
On June 30, 2026, Plaintiff submitted an objection to Defendant's new arguments submitted on reply. The same day, Defendant submitted a response to Plaintiff's objection to new arguments submitted on reply. The Court does not consider the latter two documents, as they are unauthorized.
Defendant misapprehends the purpose of a compliant separate statement. The Court is supposed to be able to look at the separate statement and determine the issues in each request. The editing of the requests which deletes the reference to the 1996 easement ought not be fatal, but failing to include the complete responses is. The failure to substantially comply with Rule 3.1345 dooms the motion. Defendant's invitation to locate the actual requests elsewhere is declined for the reasons aptly noted by Plaintiff.
"Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.010.)
"No party shall request, as a matter of right, that any other party admit more than 35 matters that do not relate to the genuineness of documents." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.030.)