Navas v. Cal Premier Roofing, LLC

citee and the rights of the citee, including the right to counsel. Most commonly, at the arraignment, the matter is set for an evidentiary hearing, or trial, on a future date. There is generally no right to a jury trial in civil contempt proceedings, even though such proceedings may result in a fine or imprisonment. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1209.)

The citor/moving party has the burden of proof and is held to a standard similar to that of a prosecutor in a criminal proceeding. The citee is presumed innocent, and the proof of the contempt must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here, Defendant has made a sufficient showing to support the issuance of an Order to Show Cause re Contempt. But Defendant has not submitted a proper proposed OSC. The OSC does not identify how many counts of contempt are alleged and does not describe the conduct that Defendant contends constitutes the contempt. Accordingly, the request for issuance of an OSC re contempt is granted, on the condition that Defendant must promptly submit a revised OSC that meets all applicable requirements.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant Emily Bannon's motion for sanctions and for issuance of an OSC re contempt.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant's request for sanctions for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order dated February 9, 2026. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Chris Nelson to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the total amount of $2,200 to Defendant Emily Bannon (through counsel) by September 24, 2026. The Court GRANTS Defendant's request for issuance of an OSC re Contempt, on the CONDITION that Defendant must promptly submit a revised proposed OSC that complies with all applicable requirements. Moving party is ordered to give notice and file proof of service of the notice with the Court.

Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Submit to Mental Examination Tentative Ruling

The motion is denied without prejudice. " A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2032.310, subd. (b).) "An order granting a physical or mental examination shall specify the person or persons who may perform the examination, as well as the time, place, manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 2032.320, subd. (d).) "The court is to describe¿ in detail ¿who will conduct the examination, where and when it will be conducted, the conditions, scope and nature of the examination, and the diagnostic tests and procedures to be employed. The way to describe these 'diagnostic tests and procedures'-- fully¿ and ¿in detail --is to list them by name." (Carpenter v. Super. Ct. ¿(2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 260.)¿¿

Here, however, Defendant does not include in its motion the proposed date, time, place, manner, conditions, or scope of the examination with Dr. Xavier Salazar. Among other things, Defendant does not identify the date or time of the proposed examination or state what tests will be administered. On that basis, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 23STCV20228 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: 514 Mondragon v. Bodega Latina Corporation 23STCV20228

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Three)

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two)

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Four)

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Five)

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Four)

Tentative Ruling

The motions are granted in part and denied in part. The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

In this matter, Plaintiff Anthony Mondragon alleges ("Plaintiff") that on April 29, 2023, he slipped and fell while shopping in a supermarket owned, operated, or controlled by defendants.

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on August 23, 2023, naming as defendants Bodega Latina Corporation, Doe Store Manager, and Does 1 through 100, and asserting causes of action for (1) premises liability and (2) general negligence.

On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Chedraui USA, Inc. as Doe 1.

On October 16, 2023, Chedraui USA, Inc., also erroneously sued as Bodega Latina Corporation ("Defendant"), filed an answer to the complaint.

In April and May 2026, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed Doe Store Manager and Bodega Latina Corporation without prejudice.