DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV2025-2998·yolo·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing 3 months agoCONTINUED

Lopez v. Romero

Four motions to compel further responses

Hearing date
May 19, 2026
Department
Fourteen
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 21, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMarina Cortez Lopez
PlaintiffAngel Tapia
PlaintiffEpigmenio Romero Mata
PlaintiffEva Rubalcaba
PlaintiffMaria Elena Lopez
DefendantJoaquin Romero, Jr.
DefendantLa Fogata Canteen Club, LLC

Ruling

Case: Lopez v. Romero Case No. CV2025-2998 Hearing Date: May 19, 2026 Department Fourteen 9:00 a.m.

On the Court’s own motion, plaintiffs Marina Cortez Lopez, Angel Tapia, Epigmenio Romero Mata, Eva Rubalcaba, and Maria Elena Lopez’s four motions to compel further responses (filed March 24, 2026) are CONTINUED to July 21, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department Fourteen. The parties are DIRECTED to further meet and confer regarding the issues identified plaintiffs’ motions – in person, by videoconference, or by telephone – by June 12, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, subd. (a); see also Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434- 1435 & 1439; Tulekyan decls., ¶¶ 2-5, Exhibit C.)

By June 26, 2026, plaintiffs MUST file: (1) a new meet and confer declaration regarding the parties’ meet and confer efforts and any remaining issues for the Court’s determination; and (2) a separate statement regarding discovery still at issue. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

By July 10, 2026, defendants Joaquin Romero, Jr. and La Fogata Canteen Club, LLC may file a responsive meet and confer declaration and separate statement.

If there are no remaining issues, plaintiffs are DIRECTED to request that the July 21, 2026, hearing be vacated.

6 of 7

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