S. David Sedaghat v. Matthew S. Pascale

supports the position that the fact is controverted" as to each fact Plaintiff contends is in dispute (ibid.), and "include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers" for the evidence (ibid.). Additionally, Plaintiff's separate statement is not in the required format. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(h).) The Court could grant Defendant's motion because of these procedural deficiencies. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (b)(3) [failure to comply with the separate statement requirements of section 437c "may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court's discretion, for granting the motion"]; see also Greenwood v. F.A.A. (1994) 28 F.3d 71, 977 ['"[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs"].)

Nonetheless, the Court will exercise its discretion and permit Plaintiff to correct the procedural deficiencies noted above. Accordingly, at the hearing of the motion, the Court will continue the matter for that purpose. Plaintiff is to file a new separate statement in opposition to the motion which complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350. The Court does not authorize Plaintiff to file new evidence or a new memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion. Defendant may file a supplemental reply limited to issues raised by evidence cited in the new separate statement. The parties are to file and serve these documents pursuant to the deadlines set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court's ruling and to file proof of service of same.

DEPARTMENT | 415 | HEARING DATE | August 24, 2026 | CASE NUMBER |

| MOTION | Motion to Compel Deposition | MOVING PARTY |

Plaintiff S. David Sedaghat | OPPOSING PARTY | Defendant Matthew S. Pascale | MOTIONS Plaintiff S. David Sedaghat ("Plaintiff") moves to compel Defendant Matthew S. Pascale ("Defendant") to appear and testify at deposition and to produce documents specified in the deposition notice. Defendant has filed an opposition to the motion.

As Defendant asserts, he has filed a special motion to strike. As such, any discovery is stayed. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 425.16, subd. (g) ["All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion"].) The Court, therefore, places the motion off calendar. Plaintiff may re-notice the motion should the Court deny the special motion to strike. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court's ruling and to file proof of service of same.

Case Number: 25STCV17500 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: 415 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT | 415 | HEARING DATE | August 24, 2026 | CASE NUMBER | 25STCV17500 | MOTIONS | Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint | MOVING PARTY |