Dinh vs. The M General Construction Company

4 Dilani vs. Guaranteed TENTATIVE RULING: Property Inspections, LLC Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs

Plaintiff Dorsaye Dilani moves to compel further responses from Defendant Joseph Gutierrez to RFPs (Set One). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(c) provides that notice of a motion to compel further responses must be served within 45 days after service of a verified response, or “on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” The 45-day deadline is mandatory and “jurisdictional,” such that it renders the court with no authority to grant a late-filed motion. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.)

Here, the court record shows this motion to be late-filed. Defendant served verified responses to RFPs (Set One) on 03/06/2026. (See ROA # 168 [Proof of Serv. of Discov. Resps.].) The deadline to file a motion to compel further responses fell on 04/27/2026. Plaintiff submits no evidence the parties agreed in writing to extend that deadline. Plaintiff filed this motion after the 45-day deadline passed, on 05/01/2026. Therefore, the court must DENY the motion.

Clerk to give notice.

5 Dinh vs. The M TENTATIVE RULING: General Construction Motion 1. Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record Company Counsel Robert A. von Esch, IV, moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant Miguel Mendez (“Client”). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

“The attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination . . . [u]pon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 284.)

Here, the court has reviewed the materials submitted by Moving Counsel and finds that counsel has complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.

Attorney von Esch shall be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant Miguel Mendez.

The Clerk is ordered to update the proposed order to reflect the following:

- Check the box in section 5(a); and - In section 7, strike the outdated information.

This order shall become effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order on Client.

Moving Counsel shall give notice of this ruling.

Motion 2. Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

Counsel Robert A. von Esch, IV, moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant The M General Construction (“Client”). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

“The attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination . . . [u]pon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 284.)

Here, the court has reviewed the materials submitted by Moving Counsel and finds that counsel has complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.

Attorney von Esch shall be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant The M General Construction.

Defendant The M General Construction is a corporate entity that cannot represent itself and must retain counsel to act on its behalf in court. (See Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284 n.5; Rogers v. Sonoma County Municipal Court (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1314, 1318.)

While the ban on self-represented corporate entities does not prevent the court from granting the motion to withdraw, it will place pressure on The M General Construction to obtain new counsel or risk

forfeiting important rights through non-representation, such as having its responsive pleading stricken and default entered. (See Rogers v. Sonoma County Municipal Court, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 1318; Ferruzzo v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 504.)

Defendant is ordered to obtain counsel and file evidence thereof with the court by September 30, 2026.

The Clerk is ordered to update the proposed order to reflect the following:

- Check the box in section 5(a); - In section 7, strike the outdated information; and - In section 13, add Defendant is ordered to obtain representation and file evidence thereof with the court by September 30, 2026.

This order shall become effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order on the Client.

Moving Counsel shall give notice of this ruling.

6 Diyar Irvine, TENTATIVE RULING: LLC vs. Elzoheiry Objections to Referee’s Reports and Recommendations

Cross-Defendant Toorak Capital Partners LLC (Toorak) objects in part to Report and Recommendation Nos. 212 and 213 issued by Discovery Referee, Judge Lina S. Marks (Ret.). For the following reasons, the objections are OVERRULED.

On January 12, 2024, at an Order to Show Cause re Appointment of Discovery Referee, the Court appointed Honorable Gail Andler as a Discovery Referee. (ROA 515.) Judge Andler was not able to take this matter, so on February 9, 2024, the Court appointed Judge Linda Marks (Ret.) as Discovery Referee. (ROA 554.)

The Report and Recommendation of the Referee is advisory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 644.) “The court has broad discretion to determine the best method for considering a party’s challenges to the referee’s findings, and the court is not required to hold a hearing or conduct a de novo analysis of the underlying arguments. [Citations.] In its review, the court should give the referee’s findings ‘ “great weight” ’ and focus on the parties’ objections to those findings. [Citation.] We examine the trial court’s decision to accept the referee’s