TORKZADEH VS. ACCRDIA LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY

# Case Name Tentative

1. TORKZADEH VS. ACCRDIA LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY 2025-01522348 MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE

The application of attorney Matthew D. Kelly to appear pro hac vice as counsel for defendants Acrisure, LLC, Acrisure of California, LLC, and Nickola Vucurevic in this matter is hereby GRANTED pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40.

2. HERNANDEZ VS. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC 2025-01462311 MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION (ORAL OR WRITTEN)

The Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified and Custodian of Records by Plaintiffs Jose Garcia Hernandez and Laurie Espinoza is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant to produce a witness pursuant to their deposition notice served on 7/16/25. Plaintiffs’ counsel declares they sent multiple emails but as of 2/2/26 Defendant’s counsel had not provided a deposition date.

Defendant is ordered to produce a witness within 30 days of this order. Any dispute regarding the specific production requests and categories of testimony may be resolved via a motion to compel further responses if necessary after diligent attempts to meet and confer.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $2,265.00.

3. AMPCO CONTRACTING, INC. VS. MONZON & SON ENTERPRISES, INC. 2024-01381486 1. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff Ampco Contracting, Inc.’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions is DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part.

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant Rafael Solorio Jr. to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One); and for an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel.

After the motion was filed, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration on 7/7/26, indicating Defendant served verified responses on 6/2/26. Thus, the motion is moot as to the responses. Plaintiff’s counsel contends the tardy responses are “noncomplaint,” has attached the responses to the supplemental declaration and asks the Court to grant the motion and order Defendant to serve compliant responses. This request is improper. Plaintiff has not met and conferred with Defendant about the responses’ purported deficiencies and has not served Defendant with