Kelsie Snyder and Madelyn Taylor v. Pappas Defendants

Plaintiff has established no intention to commence developing the property. Meanwhile, the Court remains concerned about the risk of conflicting rulings.

CalGEM will ultimately make determinations regarding who is responsible for plugging the well, who is responsible for cleaning up contamination, etc. If this civil court also makes those same determinations, there is a serious possibility of conflict. Again, as indicated in the prior rulings, CalGEM is uniquely situated to make these expert determinations, and this is the purpose of the primary jurisdiction doctrine.

If the parties wish to appear and argue, the Court wishes to hear from the parties on the following issues: · Do we know for certain that CalGEM will ultimately assess responsibility for the plugging of the well, remediate the property, and/or assess responsibility for remediation of the property? · If CalGEM is ultimately not going to undertake the above, is there a process pursuant to which it will notify the parties that its role in the property is complete? · What steps can the parties take to ensure evidence is preserved during the pendency of the stay? Could the parties exchange evidence even while the stay is pending to ensure Plaintiff's concern about lost evidence is addressed? Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Background

Facts Plaintiffs, Kelsie Snyder and Madelyn Taylor filed this action against their landlords and property management company for habitability violations and related claims. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on 3/18/24 and the Pappas Defendants filed their answer on 4/14/25.

2. Motions to Compel

a. Relief Sought The Pappas Defendants move to compel responses to (1) supplemental interrogatories, set one and SROGs, set two (Madelyn Taylor), (2) supplemental interrogatories, set one (Kelsie Snyder), supplemental RPDs and RPDs, sets two and three (Madelyn Taylor), and supplemental RPDs and RPDs, sets two and three (Kelsie Snyder).

b.

Analysis

The time to respond to all outstanding discovery has passed, and Plaintiffs have not served responses. Defendants gave notice of these motions, and the time to file opposition has also passed. The motions to compel are therefore granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve responses to the outstanding discovery, without objections, within ten days. CCP Sec.Sec.2030.290(a), (b), 2031.300(a), (b).

c. Sanctions Defendants seek imposition of sanctions. Sanctions are mandatory unless Plaintiffs show good cause or substantial justification to avoid sanctions. Sec.Sec.2030.290(c), 2031.300(c). Plaintiffs have not filed timely opposition and have therefore necessarily failed to make this showing. Defendants seek sanctions in the amounts of $1750 (interrogatories Snyder) and $1500 (all other motions). Defense Counsel bills at the rate of $250/hour. The Court awards one hour to prepare each form discovery motion.

No opposition was filed and therefore no time to prepare a reply is awarded. The Court awards one hour to attend the hearing, but only awards the time once. The Court therefore awards a total of five hours of attorney time at the rate of $250/hour, or $1250 in attorneys' fees. Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiffs only and not against their attorneys of record. Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay $1250 in sanctions to Defendants, by and through their attorney of record, within twenty days.

d. Notice Defendants are ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25LBCV01320 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: S27

Background

Facts Plaintiff, Hector Soto filed this action against Defendant, American Honda Motor Company, Inc. for damages arising out of alleged violations of Song-Beverly. The case is set for trial on 8/24/26.

Motion to Quash (#1) Plaintiff served a notice to appear on Honda, demanding Honda produce Michelle Jongkind, Jeff Chang, Steven Bailey, and Michael V. Tyrrell for appearance at trial. As Honda correctly notes in moving papers, a notice to appear can only be used to require an officer, director, or managing agent of Honda to appear. See CCP Sec.1987(b). Honda provides evidence that the individuals whose appearance is sought by way of the subpoena are not Honda's officers, directors, and/or managing agents, and therefore, in light of the lack of opposition, the motion to quash is granted.

Motion to Quash (#2) Plaintiff served a subpoena on Diamond Valley Honda, demanding that its custodian of records and person most qualified appear at trial. Honda moves to quash the subpoena, contending (a) a subpoena for trial appearance cannot be