Motions to Compel Further Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants included $1,576.79 worth of charges for filings in the San Bernadino County Superior Court.
In their Sur-Reply, Defendants clarified that the $1,656.55 requested on Line 14 of the Memorandum of Costs represents only the electronic filing fees incurred in the Orange County action. Defendants set forth that the specific invoices related to this Orange County matter are located on pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 of Exhibit B. The invoices were provided to defense counsel in a single PDF and included the San Bernadino case which have overlapping parties. Accordingly, the court will allow these filing costs.
In sum, the motion is DENIED in its entirety.
Defendants to give notice.
8 BRE-FMCA, LLC vs. Motions to Compel Further Responses re Tealeaf 1. Requests for Admissions (RFAs) Corporation 2. Special Interrogatories 3. Form Interrogatories 4. Production of Documents (RFPs)
The court DENIES Plaintiff BRE-FMCA, LLC’s motions to compel further responses from Defendant STEVEN MA to (1) RFAs (Set One), (2) Special Interrogatories (Set One), (3) Form Interrogatories (Set One), and (4) RFPs (Set One).
As to the RFAs (Set One), Plaintiff seeks further responses to Nos. 10, 14, 16, and 20 on the grounds that the current responses are “impermissibly vague, fail to clearly delineate what is admitted from what is denied, and are non-responsive and evasive to the substance of the requests.” (Not. Of Mot. [ROA 93], at p. 2, lines 10-14.)
As to the Special Interrogatories (Set One), Plaintiff seeks further responses to Nos. 1-21, 24-26 and 28-31 on the grounds that the current responses are “evasive and
incomplete.” (See Not. Of Mot. [ROA 101], at p. 2, lines 10- 12.)
As to the Form Interrogatories (Set One), Plaintiff seeks further responses as to Nos. 2.7, 4.1, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 15.1, 17.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6 on the grounds that the current responses are “incomplete, conclusory, boilerplate, internally inconsistent, and fail to demonstrate a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the requested information.” (See Not. Of Mot. [ROA 97], at p. 2, lines 10- 14.)
As to the RFPs (Set One), Plaintiff requests further responses as to Nos. 1-22 on the grounds that the current responses are “improper, containing impermissible conditional compliance language, non-compliant inability statements, waived objections due to failure to serve timely initial responses, and promises of future production without confirmation that production is complete.” (Not. Of Mot. [ROA 86], at p. 2, lines 11-16.)
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?”
As for each motion, Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions.
The discovery statutes provide in relevant part, “Unless notice of th[e] motion [to compel further responses] is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, . . . the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response”. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), 2033.290(c).) The 45-day deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional, such that the court has no authority to grant a belatedly noticed motion. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.)
According to the moving papers, defendant served verified responses to the form interrogatories and supplemental responses to the other discovery requests on 3/18/26. (Kim Decl., ¶ 12, Exhs. I-M.)
The motions were however not properly served on Defendant. Service was by electronic means and selfrepresented parties such as Defendant Ma must be served
by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service, by: (1) serving a notice on all parties and filing the notice with the court, or (2) manifesting affirmative consent through electronic means with the court or the court’s electronic filing service provider, and concurrently providing the party’s electronic address with that consent for the purpose of receiving electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(c)(3); Cal. Rules Ct., rule 2.251(b)(1)(B).)
The court record does not contain any notice filed by Defendant consenting to electronic service.
Also, the Proof of Service filed on 5/12/26 (ROA 123) does not show notice of the moving papers and such notice is untimely under the 45-day rule.
In sum, it appears Plaintiff did not provide proper and timely notice for the motions before the expiration of the 45-day rule.
In sum, the motions are DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.
9 Grossman vs. 1031 Demurrer Crowdfunding, LLC OFF-CALENDAR as MOOT. Section 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure grants a plaintiff the right to file an amended complaint in response to a demurrer or motion to strike directed at the original complaint, if filed and served by the date for filing an opposition brief.
Here, the filing of the First Amended Complaint (FAC) on 7/13/26 renders the demurrer moot since the original Complaint has been superseded and the FAC is now the operative pleading. (See, e.g., State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131 [“Because there is but one complaint in a civil action [citation], the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.”]; JKC3H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477 [“the filing of an amended