JASSO, ROSALINDA vs HERNANDEZ, KELLY PAIGE

hearing is continued, as above, for that purpose, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or by online video conference to discuss the issues herein.

The parties are further ordered to submit a Joint Status Statement by September 1, 2026, describing their efforts to meet-and-confer and any resolution or narrowing of the issues they were able to achieve.

Discovery is intended to be self-executing, and good faith communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, not mere bickering between counsel. (See, e.g., Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424.)

The Court expects the parties to make genuine efforts to informally resolve their differences with due civility to one another and to demonstrate their best efforts in this regard.

Lastly, if the parties are unable to demonstrate significant progress toward informal resolution of the issues herein by the time of the continued hearing, the Court will consider the appointment of a discovery referee to manage discovery and reduce the burden on the Court and the parties.

CV-25-011530 - DIAZ, KIMBERLY vs BLYTHE, HOLLY YVETTE - Defendant's Motion for Orders Compelling Plaintiff, Kimberly Diaz, To (1) Further Respond to Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents, Set One; (2) Pay Costs and Sanctions - DROPPED, at the request of the moving party.

UD-26-000355 - CHAVEZ FAMILY TRUST vs WRIGHT, SHAUN - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default & Default Judgment - DENIED without prejudice.

This matter was continued from July 14, 2026. The Court's minute order from that date indicates that the Court expressed doubt regarding proper service of the moving papers on Plaintiff's counsel. The Court then ordered, inter alia, that Defendant "serve all motion documents along with the continued hearing date on Plaintiff's counsel and file proper proof of service with the Court." (Emphasis added.)

A proof of service was belatedly filed on July 29, 2026. (Defendant may wish to note for future reference that a proof of service should be filed at least five court days before any hearing date in accordance with rule 3.1300(c) of the California Rules of Court.)

The proof of service fails to indicate that Plaintiff's counsel was served with a notice of the continued hearing date, as required by the Court's July 14, 2026 minute order. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the motion is procedurally defective and DENIES it without prejudice.