Joint defense motion to continue trial
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 16 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj (covering this calendar for Judge Parrett) Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2270
DATE: July 29, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
Line 8 26CV485448 Craig Rotbert v. Plaintiff’s motion to compel verified further responses to requests for Apele Builder, production, set one, against defendant Apele Builder, Inc.. (Code Civ. Proc., Inc., a California § 2033.310.) Notice is proper and the motion is opposed by defendant. The Corporation et motion indicates defendant served unverified, objection-only responses to the al. requests for production.
Defense counsel argues in opposition that corporate defendant Apele “would neither execute verifications nor meaningfully assist counsel in preparing substantive responses,” which led to the objection-only responses. Counsel asserts that a motion to be relieved as counsel has been filed, but none is scheduled. (Any future motion to be relieved as counsel should be reserved on a 9:01 a.m. non-substantive law and motion calendar.)
The motion is GRANTED. Defendant Apele is ordered to provide verified responses to the requests for production no later than August 7, 2026. The objections raised in the initial responses are preserved.
The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant Apele (but not its counsel of record) is ordered to pay plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $861.65 ($61.65 filing fee plus two hours of attorney fees at $400/hour). Those sanctions must be paid no later than August 21, 2026. The court will prepare the order.
Line 9 24CV448840 Skanska- Joint defense motion to continue trial. Notice is proper and the motion is Shimmick- opposed by plaintiff. The motion sought a trial continuance to May 2027. Herzog, a joint The court granted a trial continuance to May 2027 by ex parte order dated venture v. July 15, 2026. It is unclear why defendants did not withdraw this motion. LAN/TYLIN, a The motion is DENIED AS MOOT. The court will prepare the order. joint venture et al.
5
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?”