Defendant's Motion to Compel
Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Mon, 06/01/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Defendant's Motion to Compel Tentative Ruling Plaintiff ["Mand"]: Self-represented Defendant ["Albertsons"]: Amy Lewis, Gregory E. Stone Issue Defendant's Motion to Compel
Mand has failed to respond to the subject discovery. That failure justifies the requested order compelling responses (answers, without objections) to Albertsons' Form Interrogatories and an award of sanctions in the amount of $1,110.00 in favor of Albertsons and against Mand.
There is no [Proposed] Order submitted. Defense counsel will submit one forthwith consistent with this ruling. The Pretrial Date of 2/17/27 at 11:30am is confirmed; the actual trial starts 2/18/27 at 9am. All trial documents are due one week in advance.
Analysis
This is an unopposed motion to compel responses to form interrogatories and for sanctions. The Motion Filed by Defendant 4/15/2026; set for 7/1/26; 26 pages; summarized; Albertsons moves for an order compelling Mand to provide responses (answers, without objection) to Defendant's Form Interrogatories. Albertsons further requests that Mand be ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,110.00 to Albertsons representing reasonable expenses including the attorney's fees incurred by Albertsons in connection with this proceeding.
Plaintiff Malkiat Mand ("Plaintiff" or "Mand") alleges that on August 25, 2023, he allegedly slipped and fell on a wet floor in the men's restroom at the Albertsons' store located at 7127 Hollister Ave., #27, Goleta, CA 93117, after which an unknown patron allegedly pinched Plaintiff's right shoulder that was allegedly instigated by an unknown employee of Albertsons.
Procedural History
On or about February 10, 2026, Albertsons served via U.S. Mail, initial written discovery including form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for admissions and request for production of documents on Mand. (See Exhibit "A" to the Declaration of Amy W. Lewis ("Lewis Decl.")) 14 Mand contacted counsel for Albertsons on March 10, 2026, via telephone and e 15 - mail seeking an extension to March 31, 2026 to provide verified responses to Albertsons 16 ' written discovery requests, which counsel granted.
On or about March 20, 2026, Mand 17 served via U.S. Mail and e-mail, verified responses to requests for admission and special interrogatories and unverified responses to request for production of documents. No responses to form interrogatories were provided.
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?”
On March 23, 2026, Albertsons' counsel correspondence with Mand via e-mail regarding the status of the responses to form interrogatories and noting that same were anticipated to be served on or before March 31, 2026, pursuant to the earlier extension granted by counsel. Counsel provided another copy of the form interrogatories and further advised that Mand should advise if further time was required. (See Exhibit "B" to Lewis Decl.)
No responses were forthcoming, and although there is no meet and confer requirement for failure to provide discovery responses, Albertsons' counsel sent an additional e-mail to Mand on April 8, 2026 agreeing to delay filing any Motion to Compel until the end of the week. (See Exhibit "C" to Lewis Decl.)
As of the filing of this motion, no responses have been provided, and there has been no further communication from Mand. Supported by the Declaration of Amy W. Lewis.
Summarized: Mand alleges that on August 25, 2023, he allegedly slipped and fell on a wet floor in the men's restroom at the Albertsons' store located at 7127 Hollister Ave., #27, Goleta, CA 93117, after which an unknown patron allegedly pinched Plaintiff's right shoulder that was allegedly instigated by an unknown employee of Albertsons.
On or about February 10, 2026, Albertsons served via U.S. Mail, initial written discovery including form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for admissions and request for production of documents on Mand. [Exhibit "A."]
Mand contacted counsel for Albertsons on March 10, 2026, via telephone and e-mail seeking an extension to March 31, 2026 to provide verified responses to Albertsons' written discovery requests, which counsel granted.
On or about March 20, 2026, Mand served via U.S. Mail and e-mail, verified responses to requests for admission and special interrogatories and unverified responses to request for production of documents. No responses to form interrogatories were provided.
On March 23, 2026, Albertsons' counsel correspondence with Mand via e-mail regarding the status of the responses to form interrogatories and noting that same were anticipated to be served on or before March 31, 2026, pursuant to the earlier extension granted by counsel. Counsel provided another copy of the form interrogatories and further advised that Mand should advise if further time was required. [Exhibit "B."]
No responses were forthcoming, and although there is no meet and confer requirement for failure to provide discovery responses, Albertsons' counsel sent an additional e-mail to Mand on April 8, 2026 agreeing to delay filing any Motion to Compel until the end of the week. (Exhibit "C"]
As of the filing of this motion, no responses have been provided, and there has been no further communication from Mand. Counsel for Albertsons attempted in good faith to meet and confer with Mand regarding his verified responses to form interrogatories propounded by Albertsons without the need for Court intervention. The refusal of Mand to provide verified answers justifies the imposition of sanctions (reasonable fees and costs) in the amount of $1,110.00 in favor of Defendant Albertsons and against Mand. Supported by Exhibits A, B, C.
Opposition None filed
The Court's Conclusions
Mand has failed to respond to the subject discovery. That failure justifies the requested order compelling responses (answers, without objections) to Albertsons' Form Interrogatories and an award of sanctions in the amount of $1,110.00 in favor of Albertsons and against Mand.
Tentative Ruling: Robert Ottinger v Paul P Weishaar et al
arbitration to avoid the possibility of inconsistent rulings. (See Hearden, supra, 103 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1017-1018; Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1281.2, subd. (c).)
Tentative Ruling: Malkiat Mand v. Albertsons Companies, Inc. Tentative Ruling: Malkiat Mand v. Albertsons Companies, Inc. Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 07/29/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion of Defendant for Judgment on the Pleadings Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Malkiat Mand: Self-represented For Defendant Albertsons LLC: Gregory E. Stone, Amy W. Lewis, Stone Dean LLP RULING The motion of Defendant Albertsons LLC, for judgment on the pleadings is granted, with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file and serve his amended complaint, if any, no later than August 12, 2026.
Background
As alleged in Plaintiff's complaint in paragraph GN-1: Defendant Albertsons LLC (Albertsons), sued as Albertsons Companies, Inc., owned and operated the Albertsons store located at 7127 Hollister Ave #27, Goleta, California (the Property).
On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff Malkiat Mand entered the Property at 7 a.m. to shop and went to the restroom. Because of the lack of signage indicating a wet floor, Mand slipped and fell, causing injuries to his foot, ankle, and shoulder. Plaintiff exited the restroom to complain to management when a patron came from behind and punched Plaintiff in the right shoulder in an unprovoked attack. Plaintiff believes the instigation by a store clerk caused this patron to attack Plaintiff in a violent manner. Plaintiff also believes that employees of Albertsons made false statements in an attempt to conceal the crimes that occurred inside the Property.
On September 8, 2025, Mand filed his complaint in this action against Albertsons.
On April 8, 2026, the Court granted a motion to strike the punitive damages portion of Plaintiff's complaint, and Plaintiff was ordered to file and serve a first amended complaint no later than April 23, 2026. He failed to do so.
On May 4, 2026, Albertsons answered the complaint with a general denial and 18 affirmative defenses, including the affirmative defense that the action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
On June 30, 2026, Albertsons filed the present motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the action is time-barred pursuant to the two-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury actions. Plaintiff was properly served with the motion on June 30, 2026, but has not filed opposition or any other response to the motion.
Analysis: A Defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings if "[t]he complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that Defendant." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).) "The grounds for motion provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the Court is required to take judicial notice. Where the motion is based on a matter of which the Court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, the matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the Court may otherwise