Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
daily living, the Court agrees with Respondent that the petition fails to allege facts establishing Petitioner's standing to prosecute a dependent-adult-financial-abuse claim on Mark's behalf. Accordingly, the motion is granted as to the dependent-adult-financial-abuse allegations premised upon injuries allegedly suffered by Mark Cruz.
C. Leave to Amend
The Court GRANTS leave to amend. Petitioner did not identify in her opposition how the standing defect could be cured and instead maintained that the petition is presently sufficient. Nevertheless, this is the first pleading challenge directed at these allegations. California law strongly favors permitting amendment where there remains a reasonable possibility that a defect may be cured. On the present record, the Court cannot conclude that amendment would necessarily be futile. Petitioner shall file and serve any amended pleading within 20 days after service of the signed order.
Disposition
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is: - DENIED as to allegations and claims arising from the alleged dependent-adult abuse of Scott Cruz; and - GRANTED with 20 days' leave to amend as to allegations and claims arising from the alleged dependent-adult abuse of Mark Cruz. Respondent to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-23-002171 - MILES, JACOB AARON vs HUIZAR, RAFAEL, Jr - Defendant Truc Than Ly, El & El Wood Products Corp., and Metrie El & El LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment and Alternatively Motion for Summary Adjudication - SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED. The Court finds that Defendants, as the moving parties, have carried the initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment pursuant to the application of the "sudden emergency," or "imminent peril" doctrine herein. Specifically, the documentary, deposition, and video evidence submitted herein supports the conclusion that Defendant Truc, acting with reasonable care, was suddenly and unexpectedly confronted by an emergency he did not cause. (Shiver v.
Laramee (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 395, 397.) The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a material factual dispute preventing judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff has failed to carry that burden, as his responsive evidence gives rise to no more than mere speculation, cannot be regarded as substantial, and is insufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact. (See, e.g.,
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-25-011530 - DIAZ, KIMBERLY vs BLYTHE, HOLLY YVETTE - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Defendant Holly Yvette Blythe - GRANTED, in part, as follows:
Preliminarily, the Court notes that while submitted as a single motion, the papers herein seek 3 separate orders concerning 3 separate discovery devices: Special Interrogatories, Set One to Defendant Holly Yvette Blythe; Special Interrogatories, Set Two to Defendant Holly Yvette Blythe; and Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records directed to non-party In-N-Out Burgers. Such combined motions are disfavored. In this instance, the Court finds that the issues presented with regard to the 2 sets of special interrogatories are sufficiently interrelated as to justify hearing concurrently in the interest of judicial economy, and for that reason the Court will consider those issues together herein. As to the remaining request for an order concerning the non-party deposition subpoena for business records, the Court declines to consider that issue in this context.
With regard to the issues raised herein with regard to Defendant Holly Yvette Blythe's responses to Special Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, the Court notes the parties' agreement that the responses were untimely served. Therefore, objections were waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(a).) On that basis, the assertion of objections and provision of responsive information subject to the same in Defendant's responses were without merit, entitling Plaintiff to an order compelling service of further responses, without objection. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.300(a)(3).) Defendant's further responses to Special Interrogatories, One and Two, shall be provided within 14 days.
The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with the instant motion. In that regard, the Court awards $675 in sanctions against defense counsel, payable to Plaintiff's counsel. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2030.300(c); 2023.010, 2023.030, et seq.)
CV-26-001531 - GONZALEZ, MARGARITA GUTIERREZ vs CENTRAL VALLEY CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICAL GROUP INC - a) Defendant's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. b) Defendant's Motin to Strike Punitive Damages - GRANTED, and unopposed.
a) The Court finds that the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts supporting the challenged 2nd and 3rd causes of action as against Defendant CVMG. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.10(e).) The Court will grant leave to amend in this instance, despite the fact that Plaintiff did not demonstrate how the pleading could be amended to survive demurrer. Plaintiff shall submit her amended pleading within 20 days.
b) The Court notes that Plaintiff does not oppose an order striking the challenged punitive damage allegations at this stage, subject to a future motion for leave to seek such damages.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:
CV-21-003250 - COLON, LUIS vs DDS DISCOUNTS - Defendant's Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds that Defendant Zanders has failed to respond to the Requests for Admissions, Set One, served on him on November 6, 2023, by Defendant DD's Discounts. Defendant DD's Discount's motion is therefore granted. Accordingly, all objections to said Requests for Admissions by Defendant Zander are hereby waived. Code of Civil Procedure Sec.2033.280(a). Furthermore, said Requests for Admissions, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted in this matter for all purposes including trial. Civ. Proc. Code Sec.Sec. 2033.250(a), 2033.280 and 2033.410; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762. DD's Discounts shall submit a Proposed Order that conforms with the court's ruling by July 24, 2026.
CV-23-002861 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs SANCHEZ, ROBERTO VIVEROS - Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1050 - DENIED, without prejudice.
The People do not demonstrate proof of service on Real Party in Interest Roberto Sanchez. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005. Accordingly, the People's motion is denied, without prejudice. The People shall submit a Proposed Order conforming to the Court's ruling by July 24, 2026.
CV-24-000847 - ORTIZ, ALEJANDRO vs CITY OF MODESTO - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production from the City of Modesto - GRANTED. b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from the City of Modesto - GRANTED.
a) Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2017.010. In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Ct. (2017) 3 Cal. 531.
Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2031.210 provides that a party responding to discovery shall respond by any of the following: (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities. (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item. (3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.