14th & Velasco LLC v. Kevin S. Bemel, et al.

Proc., Sec. 2030.300, subd. (d).) Plaintiff's two other motions scheduled for August 20, 2026 (regarding Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for Admission) are ADVANCED to this date and are also DENIED AS MOOT.

A Non-Appearance Case Review re: Payment of Additional Filing Fee is scheduled for September 2, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Dated this 18th day of August 2026 | | | Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court |

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 14TH & VELASCO LLC, Plaintiff, vs. KEVIN S. BEMEL, et al., Defendants. |)))))))

)))) | CASE NO.: 25STCV15618 [TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY Dept. 506 8:30 a.m. August 18, 2026 |

On June 10, 2026, Plaintiff 14th & Velasco LLC filed four motions to compel Defendant Kevin S. Bemel's further responses to Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission.

First, Plaintiff improperly reserved hearings for "Motions to Compel Discovery," not "Motions to Compel Further Discovery." This results in an inaccurate projection and accounting of the Court's workload, inconveniencing both the Court and other litigants.

Second, Plaintiff's motions did not include a separate statement or meet-and-confer declaration. In fact, the motions did not contain any substantive information about the requests or Defendant's responses. Plaintiff did not file a separate statement until August 10, 2026, after Defendant filed an Opposition.

Third, the motions make clear that Plaintiff did not attempt to follow proper procedures. For a motion to compel further, the moving party must meet and confer with the opposing party and file a separate statement or follow the Court's alternative method of outlining the disputes. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (b); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).) This Department requires the parties to follow the procedures outlined in Exhibit A of Department 506's Courtroom Information (available on the Court's website, www.lacourt.ca.gov) and file a joint statement.

Plaintiff still has not filed any meet-and-confer declaration, and Defendant's counsel's declaration indicates that Plaintiff did not make "a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2016.040.) Had Plaintiff done so, these motions may not have been necessary, because "Defendant intends to fully cooperate with Plaintiff and provide further responses which Plaintiff and Defendant agree to, and would have done so prior to a motion to compel being necessary." (Drubach Decl. P. 16.)

For these reasons, the motions are CONTINUED to September 24, 2026 at 8:30 a.m.

The parties are ordered to follow Department 506's procedures and file a Joint Statement containing only the matters that were not resolved by meeting and conferring. Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Dated this 18th day of August 2026 | | | Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court |

Case Number: 25STCV20266 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: 506 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ARSEN KAZANCHIAN, Plaintiff, vs. IMMERSIVE HUB, INC, et al., Defendants. |))))))))))) |