Plaintiff Jose Ruiz's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, Request for Sanctions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
In addition, the Court notes an additional demurrer, submitted by Defendant Hartley Patterson, LLP, which is set for hearing on August 4, 2026. The Court intends to likewise CONTINUED that hearing, as above. Counsel for Harley Patterson, LLP is likewise expected to continue meet-and-confer efforts in good faith in advance of the continued hearing date and to submit a supplemental declaration before the continued hearing.
CV-26-003769 - GENESIS FAMILY ENTERPRISES INC vs GERRARD, FRANK WALTER - Petitioner's Petition for Judicial Declaration of Abandonment - HEARING REQUIRED. Despite the Court's grant of a continuance at Petitioner's request at the time of the last hearing, Petitioner has apparently failed to cure the procedural deficiencies with regard to service of the petition herein. Specifically, proof of service of the petition fails to demonstrate compliance with the service requirements of Civ. Code Sec. 798.61(c). In addition, the address contained on the proof of service for the petition as to Respondents Gerrard and Wilhelm appears to be incomplete, as no space number is indicated. Petitioner's counsel shall appear to address the status of the petition in view of these deficiencies.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:
CV-25-002051 - RODRIGUEZ, JAVANNA vs LA PARRILLA INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement; (2) Approval to Notice to Class Members; (3) Approval of Settlement Administrator; and (4) Setting Hearing for Final Approval of Settlement - GRANTED. Based on a review of the moving papers, Court finds good cause to order as follows: The Settlement class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.769(c). The proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and subject to final approval by this Court. The class counsel, class representative and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.
The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter: 8-19-26 | Defendant shall provide Class Information to Administrator. | 9-11-26 | Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members. | 11-13-26 | Class Deadline for Submission of Opt-Out Notices, Objections or Workweek Disputes. | 11-20-26 | Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval and submit due diligence declaration from Administrator. | A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for December 18, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court. The Class Notice shall be revised to reflect the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.
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?”
CV-25-002580 - RUIZ, JOSE RUIZ vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Plaintiff Jose Ruiz's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, Request for Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion. In view of the parties' failure to comply with the Court's prior order requiring the parties to engage in further meet and confer, and to submit a Joint Status Statement to the Court, this matter is further continued to August 18, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24. The Court also sets an OSC re Sanctions for August 18, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 as to both counsel, due to the failure of both counsel to obey the Court's prior order.
CV-25-012491 - FRELIX, ANTONIO vs OAKLAND MOTOR CARS INC - Defendant's Petition to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Putative Class Claims, and Stay Proceedings - GRANTED. The Court finds that Defendant has discharged its burden of demonstrating evidence of a written agreement between the parties regarding the present dispute according to the terms of the arbitration between Plaintiff and Oakland Motor Cars Co, executed by Plaintiff on December 30, 2024. Brockman v. Kaiser Found. Hosps. (2025) 114 Cal. App. 5th 569, reh'g denied Oct. 16, 2025; Gamboa, v NorthEast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 158; Mendoza v. Trans Valley Transp. (2022) 75 Cal. App. 5th 748. The Court further finds that Plaintiff does not dispute the existence of an executed arbitration agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Oakland Motor Cars Co. covering the present dispute.
A procedural unconscionability analysis begins with an inquiry into whether the contract is one of adhesion. Swain v. LaserAway Med. Grp., Inc. (2020), 57 Cal. App. 5th 59, as modified (Nov. 3, 2020). However, procedural unconscionability alone does not invalidate a contract but requires courts to closely scrutinize the substantive terms to ensure they are not manifestly unfair or one-sided. OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal. 5th 111, 447; Stoker v. Blue Origin, LLC (2026) 120 Cal. App. 5th 91. Furthermore, when there is no other indication of oppression or surprise, the degree of procedural unconscionability of an adhesion agreement is low, and the agreement will be enforceable unless the degree of substantive unconscionability is high.
Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 771. Notably, the degree of unfairness required for unconscionability of an arbitration agreement must be as rigorous and demanding for arbitration clauses as for any other contract clause. OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, supra.
The court finds, to the extent that the arbitration agreement was a contract of adhesion, that it exhibits a baseline, low degree of procedural unconscionability. Swain v. LaserAway Med. Grp., Inc. (2020) 57 Cal. App. 5th 59, as modified (Nov. 3, 2020). Evidence of lack of negotiation and meaningful choice, and/or surprise, where the allegedly unconscionable provision is hidden within a prolix printed form would support a finding of procedural unconscionability. Swain v. LaserAway Med. Grp., Inc. (2020) 57 Cal.
App. 5th 59, as modified (Nov. 3, 2020). Among the court's considerations in determining whether a contract was procedurally unconscionable, in addition to the issue of adhesion, is the length of the proposed contract and the length and complexity of the challenged provision. The court finds here that the arbitration agreement is included on the 6 th page of an 8-page Vehicle Salesperson Compensation Program, has its own subheading in bold capitals and is quite lengthy, comprising a single paragraph of about 63 lines, covering about a page and a half of writing overall, with regular sized font containing legal jargon.
However, apart from the provision that lists the types of disputes subject to arbitration, the remaining sentences of the arbitration agreement are not unduly long and are written in easy-to-understand sentences. Additionally, Plaintiff's execution of three arbitration agreements with Defendant prior to the one at issue does not support a finding of surprise. Overall, the court finds that the arbitration agreement at issue supports a low to moderate degree of procedural unconscionability.
The ultimate issue in every case of substantive unconscionability is whether the terms of the contract are sufficiently unfair, in view of all relevant circumstances, that a court should withhold enforcement. Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal. 5th 478. As to substantive unconscionability, the court finds a lack of substantive unconscionability herein. Specifically, the agreement provides for adequate discovery and does not impose unreasonable costs as a condition of access to the arbitration forum. Haydon v. Elegance at Dublin (2023) 97 Cal. App. 5th 1280. Additionally, due to the express application of said Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1284.2 and Plaintiff's failure to