MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET ONE; MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE; MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION SET ONE
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
4. RUEANGWIWAN VS. MEEHAN 2025-01482780 1. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET ONE 2. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE 3. MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION SET ONE
Plaintiff Suphakan Rueangwiwan’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form interrogatories, Set One; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents, Set One are DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
Plaintiff informs the court that these motions have been resolved except for two additional videos requested. As such, the substantive portion of the motion is denied as moot.
Plaintiffs request for sanctions is granted in the reduced amount of to $1,650 per motion ($4,950 for all 3) plus $300 in costs for filing fees.
Defendant John Meehan is ordered to pay to Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,250 within 25 days.
5 JOLLEY VS. LEMA 2025-01504876
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS COMPLAINT
Defendant/Cross-Defendant The Boeing Company’s motion for leave to file a Cross-Complaint against Blake Air Conditioning & Service Co., Inc. and Rommel Lema is GRANTED.
A defendant can cross-complain against a codefendant or third person not yet a party to the action only if the cause of action asserted “(1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him.” (Code Civ. Proc. §428.10, subd. (b).)
If the proposed cross-complaint is permissive, leave of court may be granted “in the interests of justice” at any time during the course of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(c).)
The proposed cross-complaint asserts causes of action for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault, contribution, and declaratory relief against Blake Air Conditioning & Service Co., Inc. and Rommel Lema. The proposed cross-complaint is therefore permissive. The claims are related to the incident alleged by Plaintiff in her Complaint and interests of justice weigh in favor of granting the motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.
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?”
Further, the Motion is unopposed and Plaintiff, the Blake Defendants, and Defendant Robert Medeiros have all stipulated to granting Boeing leave to file its Cross-Complaint. (Drummond Decl., ¶¶ 7-9, Exhs. C- E.)