MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS COMPLAINT
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.)
The Boeing Company is to file the proposed Cross-Complaint, attached to the Motion, without any changes, modifications, or alterations, within 7 days of the date of the hearing.
Moving party is to give notice.
6. PRIMARY CARE ASSOCIATESOF CALIFORNIA, INC. VS. BZ HEALTH NETWORK OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 2025-01451241 1. MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
Plaintiff Primary Care Associates of California, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Compliance with this Court’s January 27, 2026 Order is DENIED. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond to discovery. This Court only ordered Plaintiff “to file a separate statement in compliance with Section 2019.210 and is prohibited from engaging in discovery until it complies.” (ROA 166.) It made no order as to Defendants providing discovery responses upon Plaintiff filing such. Thus, the Motion is denied because there is no basis in the January 27, 2026 to order Defendants to provide discovery responses.
2. MOTION TO ENFORCE PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendants BZ Health Network of California, Inc. and BZ Health of California’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. The Court, after review of the nature of the trade secret claims and the separate statement, in its discretion, finds the separate statement lacks sufficient particularity. Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to amend its separate statement “In any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Title 5 (commencing with Section 3426) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code), before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity subject to any orders that may be appropriate under Section 3426.5 of the Civil Code.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2019.210.) The trade secret designation mandated by section 2019.210 is not itself a pleading but it functions like one in a trade secret case because it limits the scope of discovery in much the same way as the allegations of a complaint limit discovery in other types of civil actions. . . . . The rule that a trade secret must be pled with “reasonable particularity” does not mean that the designation must be strictly construed against the pleader. Generally speaking, pleadings are to be liberally construed in favor of the pleader and doubts about the permissible scope of discovery are to be resolved in favor of disclosure. [¶] “Reasonable