IN THE MATTER OF THE MACHADO FAMILY CREDIT BYPASS TRUST

Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set. No. One - HEARING REQUIRED. Discovery is supposed to be self-executing, and the parties appeared much closer on the issues than it appears in the filings. This is complicated by the late filing under unusual circumstances not clearly covered by the case law.

I have tentative views on the threshold matter of whether I have jurisdiction. While failure to pay is normally dispositive, the procedural posture of the case is not usual and forfeiture of the information appears unduly harsh. If I have jurisdiction, or discretion to find jurisdiction, I intend to go forward on the motions.

However, it appears to the Court that Defendant has conceded overbreadth in the requests. If I reach the merits, here are the likely rulings:

RFA's: RFA's 5 and 6 appear sufficiently answered. RFA 7 needs a further response. RFA 8 is properly objected to for ambiguity. RFA 9 has a sufficient answer. RFA's 10 and 11 are sufficiently answered.

Form Interrogatories Set Two: Form Interrogatory 17.1 subparts (b) and (d) require further response. If specific medical or privileged content would be responsive, asserting that privilege over specific content is warranted.

Production of documents: All responses will be limited to October 2020 to December 2022. Item number 2, the Gualala declaration, will be compelled. Items 4-7 appear to include items now in Plaintiff's possession, and they should be produced.

Special Interrogatories, Set One: All interrogatories will be time-limited to the above dates. Special Interrogatory 18 requires a further response. Various witness identification issues should be answered.

Sanctions: Although Plaintiff has failed to answer some discovery he should have answered, the lateness of the filing (and, perhaps, in-court efforts to reach resolutions) leave the Court deeply disinclined to issue any sanctions at all.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-25-012482 - KOURY, ANITA vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY - Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - CONTINUED to August 4, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is procedurally defective. It fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 439, which requires that parties meet and confer "in person, by telephone, or by video conference" before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 439 was the delivery of a written communication on May 14, 2026, sent via email to which Plaintiff did not respond. (Declaration of Jeck Dizon, P.P. 2, 4.) A communication sent by email is insufficient. The Legislature's specification of the authorized methods for meeting and conferring reflects its belief that more personal forms of communication--beyond written exchanges--are better suited to resolving disputes informally, thereby reducing the burden on both the courts and the parties.

Accordingly, this matter is CONTINUED to August 4, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22. The parties are ordered to meet and confer by one of the methods set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 439. Moving Party to file and serve a declaration no later than July 21, 2026, describing the efforts to meet and confer and any narrowing of the issues.

PR-23-000289 - IN THE MATTER OF THE MACHADO FAMILY CREDIT BYPASS TRUST - Petitioner's Motion for Consolidation of Trials of Related Actions - CONTINUED to July 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

Because of the late filing of the opposition and reply, and because the filing of the First Amended Complaint in the civil case is still in flux (with a related hearing now set for July 8, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 21), the Court CONTINUES this matter on its own motion to July 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

This is the second (or third”) motion to consolidate trial that the moving party has filed in this case. The last motion was denied on 5/14/26 for a procedural defect. But I will forward you and Kim the prior email in a moment to remind you of the dispute. The opposition to this motion was late-filed on 6/29/26, the day that the reply was due, and AFTER the moving party filed a notice of non-opposition. The opposing party states that they missed calendaring the opposition because there have been several motions filed and withdrawn, and they experienced some confusion that caused them to overlook this.

I am assuming the moving party is going to late-file a reply, but as of the time I am sending this, there is no reply showing in the court file. That is why I have highlighted "and reply" above. If the moving party does not file one before the hearing date, I recommend taking out this phrase and stating instead that the moving party may file and serve a reply by no later than July 23, 2026.

Since the denial of the motion heard on 5/14/26, the procedural posture of the civil case has changed somewhat. Judge Mayne granted permission for the filing of a FAC, but he conditioned it on a payment of fees and costs. There has been a dispute over the order, and Judge Mayne just set the matter for a further hearing on 7/8/26. Because the conditions have not been clarified, the FAC has not been filed into the case yet. Until it is officially on file, I can't really do a substantive analysis reviewing the civil pleading and comparing it to the pleading in the probate case. For the above reasons, I am recommending this continuance to July 30.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:

CV-24-000957 - ALICEAROMERO, EVELYN vs DENIZ BROS AG SERVICES INC - a) Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Evelyn Alicea-Romero to Provide a Signed Verification for her Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Carmen Alicea to Provide a Signed Verification for her Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; c) Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Carmen Alicea to Provide a Signed Verification for her Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; d) Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Evelyn Alicea-Romero; Request for Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; e) Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Carmen Alicea Request for Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23; f) Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Evelyn Alicea-Romero to Provide a Signed Verification for her Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

a-b) These matters are CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to 9-25-26 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23, to be heard after the Court's consideration of Plaintiffs' counsel's motion to be relieved from their representation herein.

CV-25-011430 - CHAVEZ, KARINA vs CHAVEZ, RAMIRO - Defendants Ramiro Chavez Et Al.'s Demurrer to Complaint - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.

The moving papers fail to include a declaration demonstrating meet-and-confer efforts as required by Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.41. Therefore, the hearing is CONTINUED, as above, and Defendant shall submit a supplemental declaration demonstrating compliance with the subject code section. The supplemental declaration shall be submitted no later than July 15, 2026.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sony S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-22-005681 - DISCOVER BANK vs DAHL, SARAH - Plaintiff's Motion to Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant's Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement - GRANTED, unopposed.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the parties of August 15, 2024, and Defendant's failure to timely pay the sums due under said agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said agreement,