KING-STEELE VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Cal.App. 3d 1617.) “If there is a controversy which calls for a declaration of rights, it is no objection that past wrongs are also to be redressed; but there is no basis for declaratory relief where only past wrongs are involved.” (Baldwin v. Marina City Properties, Inc. (1978) 79 Cal. App. 3d 393, 407.) Here, it appears that the allegations regarding misrepresentations and the use of unlicensed laborers are based entirely on past wrongs. The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME KING-STEELE VS HEARING ON PRELIMINARY

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE INJUNCTION Tentative Ruling: Hearing Required.

3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL: DANKO RESTAURANT CVME2507574 ANSWER/RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION GROUP, INC VS PATTAH OF DOCUMENTS Tentative Ruling: Motion is continued until November 25, 2026 at 8:30 am M301. Both parties are required to submit a declaration at least 10 days before the next hearing detailing compliance with the meet and confer requirements and addressing the Court’s concerns with the responses.

Pursuant to CCP §2031.010, a party may demand that any other party produce and inspect a document that is in the possession of another party. The demanding party must designate documents by specifically describing individual items or reasonably particularizing categories of documents. (CCP §2031.030(c)(1).) The responding party must respond to each request by either a statement that the party will comply, a representation that the party is unable to comply or an objection. (CCP §2031.210(a)(1)- (3).)

A demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses to a demand for inspection if the party determines that the statement of compliance or representation of inability to comply is incomplete or if an objection is without merit. (CCP §2031.310(a)(1)-(3).) A moving party must establish good cause justifying discovery. (CCP §2031.310(b)(1).) To establish good cause, the moving party must demonstrate relevance and facts justifying discovery. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

Once good cause is established, the responding party has the burden to justify any objections. (Ibid.)

Meet and Confer - A motion to compel a further response to an inspection demand or interrogatory must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (CCP §§ 2031.310(b)(2); 2030.300(b).) “This rule is designed to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1431, 1435.) The level of effort necessary to satisfy the requirement varies depending on the circumstances of the case, but a serious effort is required. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.) Whether a “reasonable and good faith attempt” was made requires an “evaluation of whether, from the perspective