DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25NWCV04256·la·Civil·Partition
Hearing todayCONTINUED

ANGELA WESEMAN vs TAMARA HOEHN

Motion to compel further responses

Hearing date
Aug 21, 2026
Department
C
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffAngela Weseman
DefendantTamara Hoehn

Ruling

(Norwalk Courthouse: Dept. C) August 21, 2026 DEPARTMENT C LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

LAZY DOG RESTAURANTS, INC., ET AL., Case No. 24NWCV02458 This personal injury action was filed on August 6, 2024.

Plaintiffs Jo Gilliam and James Gilliam were eating at a Lazy Dog restaurant when Jo Gilliam bit onto small rocks and broke a tooth. Plaintiffs sue Lazy Dog Restaurants, Inc, Daniel's Western Meat Packers, Inc., and Lawrence Wholesale, LLC.

On January 13, 2025, Lazy Dog Restaurants cross-complained against Daniel's Western Meat Packers, Inc., and Lawrence Wholesale, LLC. Here, Lawrence Wholesale moves for leave to cross-complain for indemnity and equitable apportionment. The motion is unopposed. The motion is GRANTED.

The Court notes that a cross-complaint against MOES 1 through 20 was filed by Lawrence Wholesale on August 10, 2026. The August 10, 2026 filing date shall stand. Trial is set for 2-17-27. The Court will hear from the parties regarding service of the Cross-Complaint. Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 25NWCV04256 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: C ANGELA WESEMAN vs TAMARA HOEHN, Case No. 25NWCV04256 The partition action is set for case management conference.

On May 11, 2026, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the fair market value of the Subject Property. Plaintiff had filed two motions to compel further responses relating to offsets. The Court continued the motions to today for motion setting, and it indicated to counsel that once a fair market value was determined, the Court would be available for an informal discovery conference to discuss the discovery motions.

Plaintiff has since filed six additional discovery motions (scheduled for 8/21, 9/18, 10/6, 10/20 x 2, and 10/22). Defendant has filed one discovery motion (scheduled for 10/7).

Discovery is STAYED pending determination of the fair market value of the Subject Property and an informal discovery conference regarding issues in dispute. All discovery motions are ADVANCED to today and CONTINUED for motion setting to a date convenient for the court and counsel. The Court will hear from the parties regarding the appointment of an independent appraiser by the Court. | Home -->)" -->

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share