To Compel Discovery; To Strike Complaint Answer; For Monetary Sanctions
TENTATIVE RULINGS Judge Lindsey E. Martínez, Dept. C24
“Civility is not about etiquette. This is not a matter of bad manners. Incivility slows things down, it costs people money – money they were counting on their lawyers to help them save. And it contravenes the Legislature’s directive that ‘all parties shall cooperate in bringing the action to trial[.]’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.130.)” (Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool Law Firm, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal. App. 5th 902, 911; see generally OCBA Civility Guidelines.)
• The court encourages remote appearances to save time and reduce costs. • All hearings are open to the public. • You must provide your own court reporter and interpreter, if required. • Call the other side and ask if they will submit to the tentative ruling. If everyone submits, call the clerk. The tentative ruling will become the order. If anyone does not submit, there is no need to call the clerk. • The court will hold a hearing. The court may rule differently at the hearing. (See Lewis v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 436, 442, fn. 1.)
Hearing Date: August 3, 2026 at 1:30 pm Rulings Posted: 7/31/26 at 3:45 pm
# Case Name Tentative 301 Anderson vs. Before the Court at present is what remains of the TMT Industries, “Motions (1) To Compel Discovery, (2) To Strike Inc Complaint Answer, and (3) For Monetary Sanctions,” filed on 4/29/26 by Plaintiff James G. Anderson (Plaintiff).
Those “Motions” together sought orders compelling responses to Requests for Production served by Plaintiff on Defendant TMT Industries, Inc. (TMT), along with monetary sanctions and evidentiary/terminating sanctions related thereto.
The motions to compel discovery and for monetary sanctions were addressed in Dept. CM02. On
5/20/26, the discovery issues were deemed resolved, with documents having been provided, and a stipulated monetary sanction was imposed. (ROA 103.) In light of that ruling, the request for evidentiary/terminating sanctions is MOOT.
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?”
The OSC re: status of unrepresented entity remains on calendar.
Plaintiff shall give notice.
302 Edward B. Before the Court is a demurrer by the City of Riahi, trustee of Laguna Beach (City) to the Verified First Amended the EBR Trust, Petition for Writ of Mandate (FAP) filed by Edward dated May 29, B. Riahi, as trustee of the EBR Trust, dated 5/29/15 2015 vs. City of (Petitioner). The demurrer is SUSTAINED, as set Laguna Beach forth herein.
Petitioner is granted 14 days leave to amend.
City’s unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code §452(b)&(d).)
Petitioner alleges that “The City Council approved the RPI Project on April 22, 2025.” (FAP ¶37) “The RPI Project was expressly conditioned on the subsequent approval of an access easement across the City Parcel.” (FAP ¶40) The City then approved the access easement at the same hearing. (FAP ¶44)
The City's chief contention is that the causes of action stated are barred by Government Code section 65009(c). (Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references are to the Government Code.) Section 65009 “is intended 'to provide certainty for property owners and local governments regarding decisions made pursuant to this division' (§ 65009, subd. (a)(3)) and thus to alleviate the 'chilling effect on the confidence with which property owners and local governments can proceed with projects' (id.,