SA California Group, Inc., v. Tucciarone, et al

19. Boyer, et al, v. Cambridge Sierra Holdings, LLC, et al, Case No. CIVSB2522108 Plaintiffs’ MTC Responses from Defendant Cambridge to Form Interrogatories, Set One Plaintiffs’ MTC Responses from Defendant Cambridge to Special Interrogatories, Set One Plaintiffs’ MTC Responses from Defendant Cambridge to Requests for Production, Set One 8/10/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

The Court would GRANT these unopposed motions. Responses are due within thirty days. Plaintiffs served their first set of discovery on Defendant Cambridge Sierra Holdings (Cambridge) on December 31, 2025. This first set of discovery included the at-issue Form Interrogatories, Set One (FROG1), Special Interrogatories, Set One (SROG1), and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (RFP1). (Needelman Decl., ¶¶3-5, Exhs. 1-2.)1 Responses were due on February 3, 2026, but no responses were received. (Id., ¶6.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel sent an email regarding the failure to respond on February 6, 2026, and gave Defendant a 2-week extension. (Ibid.) Again, no responses came by the deadline. (Needelman Decl., ¶8.) Plaintiffs counsel then gave a deadline of March 13, 2026 for responses to be provided, indicating that these motions would be filed thereafter. (Id., ¶9.) These motions to compel responses to the discovery followed.

As the motions are unopposed, it appears the arguments set forth therein are conceded. (DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566 [“By failing to argue the contrary, plaintiffs concede this issue.”]; see Pacifica First National, Inc. v. Abekasis (2021) 50 Cal.App.5th 654, 657 [Not returning to a topic on reply, “is a concession.”].) Thus, the Court would grant the motions.

*** *** ***

20. SA California Group, Inc., v. Tucciarone, et al, Case No. CIVSB2208478 Judgment Creditor’s Motion for Reconsideration 8/10/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

The Court would DENY the motion as it fails to set forth new law, facts, or circumstances as contemplated by Section 1008 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

However, having now been more fully apprised of the issues and the Legislative history intent of the salient statute, the Court would like to re-examine the July 9, 2026, ruling under its own authority. (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107-1109 [inherent authority to reconsider ruling].) The parties will select a hearing date for this reconsideration and set a briefing schedule, to the extent necessary.

1 While these are three separate motions, the declarations are fairly uniform. Therefore, the citations refer to the declarations of all three, unless stated otherwise.

2