Motion to Compel Responses from Ryan Peacock, Inc. to Special Interrogatories, Set One
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
10. Castro’s Cleaning Servs. Co., Inc., v Ryan Peacock, Inc., et al, Case No. CIVSB2505507 Motion to Compel Responses from Ryan Peacock, Inc. to Special Interrogatories, Set One 8/13/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17
The Court would inquire with movant as to whether the motion is now MOOT, given the procedural posture of the case. (See Notice, 6/22/26 [striking Ryan Peacock, Inc. answer and cross-complaint for failure to prosecute].)
*** *** ***
11. Fouse v. Behavior Autism Therapies, LLC, Case No. CIVSB2428112 Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration 8/13/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17
The Court would CONTINUE the motion and allow Plaintiff a sur-reply to address new evidence raised for the first time in the reply. In this matter, movant forwarded new evidence in conjunction with its reply. Plaintiff objects on that basis.
“The general rule of motion practice . . . is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537; Espejo v. SCPMG (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047; Ruiz v. Moss (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836.) However, a trial court is “vested with a sound discretion as to the permissible scope of evidence offered in rebuttal.” (Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619, 641.)
Here, the Court notes the strong public policy favoring the determination of cases on the merits, and it would continue this hearing to allow adequate due process with Plaintiff a sur-reply.
*** *** ***
12. Robertson v. City of Rialto, et al, Case No. CIVSB2325118 Defendants’ Motion to Seal 8/13/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17
Tentative Rulings The Court would GRANT, in part, and seal only that portion of the at-issue deposition transcript (currently lodged as Exhibit 6) that discloses confidential closed session discussions regarding a councilmember’s government claim. The Court would ORDER the existing Exhibit 6 returned and would have movants file Exhibit 6 with the salient pages filed separately under seal. The relevant pages are 23- 25 and 27.)1
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?”
Case Summary
In essence, this is an invasion of privacy case. Plaintiff, who is the mayor of Rialto, alleges that Defendant City and its Police Department has permitted at least ten unauthorized California Law Enforcement
1 The Court notes that movants identify citations on pages 28 through 31; however, those pages were not provided under the currently lodged Exhibit 6.
2