Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Production; Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Moving Defendant to give notice of this ruling.
4. Secor vs. Wong
24-01419650
1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 2. Motion to Compel Production 3. Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions
Plaintiff CBN Management, Inc.’s motions to compel defendants Nancy Lai Sum Wong Individually and as Trustee of the Nancy L.S. Wong Living Trust to further respond to discovery is granted as follows. The ruling below acknowledges the fact that CBN states it has now received further responses. This ruling is as to responses that have not already been provided. The court will not consider the sufficiency of the newly provided responses at this time. Should CBN determine any of them to be insufficient, it shall file a new motion with a new separate statement addressing the perceived insufficiencies.
To the extent Wong has not provided further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.1, 2.2, 2.5. 2.7 and 17.1 she shall provide further responses, without objection, within 30 days;
To the extent Wong has not provided further responses to Request for Production Nos. 1-5, 11, 21-24, 30-32, 35-38 and 42 and produced all responsive documents in Defendants’ possession, custody or control she shall provide further responses, without objection, within 30 days.
To the extent Wong has not provided further responses to Request for Admission No. 31 she shall provide further responses, without objection, within 30 days.
CBN is awarded combined sanctions in the total amount of $6,105.00 against Wong only, payable with 30 days.
CBN’s objections to the Declaration of Brook John Changala are overruled as to #1 and #4 and sustained as to the remainder.
Plaintiff to give notice of this ruling.
5. Witham vs. Engle
23-01340545
1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 2. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories 3. Motion to Compel Production 4. Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions
The motions by cross-complainant Chad Engle to compel crossdefendant Axel L. Espino Oliva dba OC Construction [Oliva] to provide further responses to moving party’s first sets of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production, are DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300
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?”
First, proof of service of all motions is defective, as the sender’s electronic service address is missing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013b, subd. (b)(1).) There is no responsive pleading waiving the defective proof of service. (See Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 698 [response on merits can waive service defect].)
Second, the motions are untimely. The motions were required to be filed “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing ...” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2030.290, subd. (c).) The responses, consisting of objections only, were served 10-10-25 by e-service (Gutenplan Decl., Ex. I), but the motions were not filed until 5-8-26, over five months later. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250 subds. (a), (c), 2031.250, subds. (a), (c), and 2033.240, subds. (a), (c) [responses consisting of only objections need not be verified]; see also moving papers at 6:15- 23 [conceding 45-day motion deadline applies to objection-only responses].)
Finally, moving party fails to provide sufficient evidence showing compliance with the meet and confer requirements for all motions. Each motion “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1), 2031.310, subd. (b)(2), 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).) In turn, Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, effective 1-1-26 [prior to the filing of the instant motions], states:
(a) A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.
(b) The declaration shall also include whether the moving party has met and conferred, including through an electronic communication, regarding the retention of a certified shorthand reporter to report the hearing on the motion. This subdivision does not prevent the retention of a certified shorthand reporter.
Moving party only met and conferred in writing, and there is no evidence of any discussions regarding court reporter contentions. (Gutenplan Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. K [email exchange].) Further, even assuming written efforts only were sufficient, moving party has not provided a copy of any meet and confer letter, nor any evidence of its substance; thus, there is no way for the court to determine whether moving party met and conferred regarding “each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, subd. (a).)
Accordingly, the motions are DENIED.
Clerk shall give notice.
6. Rodriguez vs. Melo
25-01470408
1. Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default 2. Case Management Conference
Defendant Manuel Rivera Melo’s motion to set aside default and/or default judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 is DENIED.
Defendant has brought this motion solely pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5.
Section 473.5 addresses the situation where the defendant did not receive actual notice in time to defend, despite effective service. (California Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn (2024) 17 Cal.5th 207, 215.) In order to obtain relief under section 473.5, defendant must show, among other things, that defendant did not receive actual notice of the summons and complaint in time to defend the action (i.e., in time to file an answer to the complaint or other responsive pleading). (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5; Rios v.
Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 871, 885.) The defendant must establish each of these things through admissible evidence. (Anastos v. Lee (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1318; Tunis v. Barrow (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1069, 1077-1078.) In addition, the motion must be accompanied by “a copy of the answer, motion, or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (b).)
Here, defendant admits he had actual notice of this action by 3/29/25. (Melo Decl. ¶ 7 [“I first learned about this lawsuit on or around March 29, 2025, in the evening, when I found the documents on my porch.”].) This was almost five months before defendant’s default was entered on 8/26/25. Relief under section 473.5 is not available where, as here, the defendant had actual notice of the summons and complaint in time to defend the action but failed to file an answer or other