Lara v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc

the filing of a lawsuit as protected activity for anti-SLAPP purposes. (Bonni (2021) 11 Cal.5th at 1024.)

As Defendant has met his burden and demonstrated that the Complaint arises from protected activity, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate that his or her claims are legally sufficient and factually substantiated. (Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC v. Morris Cerulllo World Evangelism (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 28, 49.) “To meet this burden, a plaintiff cannot rely on its own pleading, even if verified...but must present admissible evidence.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion and therefore has presented no evidence to support the allegations of her complaint.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Defendant to give notice.

2. 30-2025-01464449 1. Motion for Continuance of Trial

Taylor vs. The City of Defendant Falck Mobile Health Corp. moves for an ordering continuing trial for approximately Fullerton six months. The Court finds good cause to grant the requested continuance. There have been no prior continuances, the requested continuance is reasonable in time, and Defendant claims it will be prejudiced if the continuance is not granted and sufficient time to conduct additional discovery is denied. No opposition has been filed by Plaintiff.

In light of the above, the Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. Trial is CONTINUED to May 10, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. in C34. All related discovery and trial related deadlines shall be calculated based on the new trial date.

Moving party to give notice.

3. 30-2024-01443133 1. Case Management Conference 2. Motion to Compel Production ESC-TOY LTD. vs.

3. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Maschoff Brennan 4. Motion to Compel Production Gilmore & Israelsen No tentative rulings. Counsel should appear – remotely or in person- and be prepared to discuss: (1) appointment of a discovery referee and (2) the status of any request for stay pending the Federal case.

4. 30-2024-01402013 1. Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)

Lara vs. Volkswagen Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Defendant” or “VWGoA”) moves the Court Group of America, Inc for an Order compelling Plaintiff Norma Lara to appear for a deposition by remote electronic means and produce documents within fifteen (15) days, or a date that the Court otherwise deems appropriate.

Pursuant to CCP§2025.450 (a), “if, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for

inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

Here, on April 29, 2026, Defendant served its Notice of Deposition of Norma Lara (“NOD”), noticing the remote deposition for May 18, 2026. (Decl. of Konrad¶4.) On May 11, 2026, Plaintiff Norma Lara electronically served objections to the NOD, indicating that Plaintiff Norma Lara will not appear for the deposition due to unavailability and to meet and confer with counsel to schedule the deposition on a mutually agreeable date. (Id¶5.) On May 28, 2026, Attorney Konrad sent meet and confer correspondence via e-mail to Plaintiff’s counsel, requesting Plaintiff provide availability by June 4, 2026 for the deposition to go forward on or before June 26, 2026. (Id.¶6). On June 4, 2026, around 6:30 p.m., Plaintiff’s counsel advised that Plaintiffs were available for deposition on July 31, 2026. (Id¶8.) At that time, the discovery cut off was August 8, 2026. This motion was filed 6/9/2026.

Here, Plaintiff has the burden to establish that her objection to the Deposition notice has merit.

Plaintiff has not sustained that burden, nor has she established how offering one date, two months after the original deposition date, and 9 days before the discovery cut off date, was a reasonable compromise.

In the reply, Defendant indicates there has been a trial continuance so the depositions of Plaintiff Norma Lara and Plaintiff Manuel Lara have been noticed for September 17, 2026, on a date mutually agreed upon by counsel. (Supp. Konrad Decl., ¶¶ 4-6; Exs. A-B.) However, Defendant does not consider the motion moot as it has no assurance that Plaintiff will appear on September 17, 2026 absent an order of this Court.

Based on applicable law and the facts herein, the Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff Norma Lara is ordered to appear at her deposition on the date agreed to by the parties- September 17, 2026.

No sanctions were requested.

Defendant to give notice.

5. 30-2023-01361390 1. Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Norris vs. Chavez-Nambo Defendant Diana Angelica Chavez-Nambo (“Defendant”) moves for an order imposing terminating sanctions against plaintiff Diona Shunte Norris (“Plaintiff”) and dismissing this action with prejudice.

The Court may impose a monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanction against any party engaging in misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) “The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. ‘Discovery sanctions “should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.”’ [Citation.] If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse. ‘A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is