Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories(X2); Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Production
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
5. Palacios vs. FCA US, LLC.
25-01464074 Motion to Compel Production
Plaintiffs Yereli Palacios and Martin Fuentes’ motion to compel defendant FCA US, LLC, to provide initial statutory disclosures, and for sanctions, is GRANTED in part and MOOT in part.
The motion is MOOT as to the document production request, as defendant has filed a declaration stating that all required documents have now been produced. (ROA 57; see also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409 [court’s discretion where responses / supplemental responses served after motion to compel filed].)
The motion is GRANTED as to sanctions, due to defendant’s failure to comply with statutory document production requirements without good cause.
Defendant FCA US, LLC shall pay a $2,500.00 sanction to counsel for moving party within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.26, subds. (b), (j)(1).)
Moving party shall give notice.
6. Noria vs. Mason Reconstruction LLC
25-01498751 1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories(X2) 2. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories 3. Motion to Compel Production
MOTIONS CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 18, 2026, at the request of the parties.
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?”