PETITION FOR PROBATE OF WILL AND FOR LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADMINISTER UNDER THE INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT
Estate of Leslie James Ellison 26PR000147
PETITION FOR PROBATE OF WILL AND FOR LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADMINISTER UNDER THE INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT
TENTATIVE RULING: The Petition is GRANTED. Michael Torr is appointed as probate referee. The matter is set for a Status Hearing Re: Final Distribution on August 11, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B. The Status Hearing may be vacated or continued without appearances needed if, prior thereto, the personal representative files a petition for an order for final distribution or a report of status of administration pursuant to Probate Code section 12200. The clerk is directed to provide notice to the parties.
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Meteor Growers, LLC v. Kimberton Wines, LLC et al 24CV001893
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND TO COMPEL DEPOSITION
TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion is GRANTED. Kimberton Wines, LLC (Kimberton) is ordered to produce code-compliant responses, without objection save those based on attorney-client privilege or attorney work product, within 20 calendar days of Notice of Entry of the instant order. Kimberton is further ordered to, within 20 calendar days of Notice of Entry of order, designate and set a date, within 45 days of the Notice of Entry of Order, and time for deposition pursuant to the subject deposition notice. Plaintiff Meteor Growers, LLC (Meteor) is directed to serve and file a Notice of Entry of the instant order.
Plaintiff Meteor Growers, LLC (Meteor) moves, pursuant to California Rule of Court, rule 3.1348, and Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450, 2030.290, and 2033.280, for an order: (1) Compelling Defendant Kimberton Wines, LLC (Kimberton) to serve verified responses to written discovery; (2) Compelling Defendant Kimberton Wines, LLC to designate and produce its person most qualified for deposition; and (3) Deeming admitted the truth of each matter specified in Plaintiff’s RFAs.
A. FACTUAL FINDINGS
Based on the evidence submitted in support of the motion, the Court finds as follows.
1. On March 23, 2026, Meteor served Kimberton with a Notice of Taking Deposition of Person Most Qualified, setting deposition for April 30, 2026. (See Declaration of John A. Heffner at ¶ 3 and Exh. C.)
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?”
2. On May 11, 2026, Meteor served Kimberton with Form Interrogatories. And Requests for Admissions. (See id. at ¶¶ 6 and 7 and Exhs. A and B.)
3. Each of the subject discovery requests was served on Kimberton care of William Deem, Managing Member. (See id. at Exhs. A-C.) The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that on March 3, 2026, former counsel for Kimberton Ethan A. Glaubiger filed a Substitution of Counsel identifying Mr. Deem as Kimberton’s contact person for the litigation.2 4. The noticed deposition, and the time for Kimberton to respond to the subject discovery has passed. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, and 2033.250.)
5. No person appeared for the noticed deposition, and as of the filing of the present motion, Kimberton has not responded in any manner to the subject discovery and has not requested any extension of the deadline for responding. (See Heffner Decl. at ¶ 12.)
Kimberton appears to concede the foregoing by failing to file anything in opposition to the motion.
B. LEGAL ANALYSIS
1. Interrogatories
By operation of law, Kimberton has, by failing to timely serve interrogatory responses, waived the right to exercise the option to produce writings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, and has waived any objection to the interrogatories. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) Meteor is entitled to an order compelling Kimberton to serve code compliant responses, without objection, to the subject interrogatories. (See id. at subd. (b).
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party...who unsuccessfully...opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Moreover, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed....” (Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)
No grounds appear to justify Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the subject discovery, and no other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.
2 An LLC is not permitted to appear by a company officer rather than an attorney. (See Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Muni. Ct. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 727.) “[A] corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Constr., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145 (CLD Constr.).) However, “[t]he rule requiring representation by an attorney does not deprive a corporation of this capacity to be a party to a lawsuit.” (Id. at 1150.) The Court understands this latter holding in CLD Constr. to mean that Kimberton may not escape its obligations under the Civil Discovery Act by failing to retain counsel.
14