Robert Ames vs AMICA MUTUAL INS CO.

proper. While Plaintiff has presented evidence that supports an inference that Pierce Law directed former clients to Pessah, that inference is not the same as proof that service at Pessah was PLG's usual place of business. Telling clients "please visit us at our new home" can be read either as PLG representing that itself now operates at that location or as a referral message telling former clients where its former lawyers and staff can now be found.

As noted by Defendant, Plaintiff has not established Ben's connection to PLG, other than speculating that it was Ben Kuerschner. And under Chinese Theater, LLC v. Starline Tours USA, Inc. (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1048, a co-located relationship with a separate entity or personnel transitions to a separate firm do not establish the defendant's own office for substituted service. Moreover, actual notice does not confer jurisdiction where there has been complete failure to comply with the statute. (See American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 392.)

Based on the foregoing, Specially Appearing Defendant Pierce Law Group, LLP's Motion to Quash Service of Summons of Plaintiff's Complaint is GRANTED.

AMICA MUTUAL INS CO. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY Date of Hearing: August 25, 2026 Trial Date: June 14, 2027 Department: 529 Case No.: 25STCV24211 Moving Party: Defendant Amica Mutual Insurance Company Responding Party: Plaintiff Robert Ames Meet and Confer: Yes. Feasel Decl.

BACKGROUND On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff Robert Ames filed a complaint against Amica Mutual Insurance Company for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff alleges he filed various insurance claims involving vandalism against various vehicles he owned and insured by Defendant.

[TENTATIVE] RULING Defendant Amica Mutual Insurance Company's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Further Responses to Discovery Requests is DENIED.

DISCUSSION Defendant Amica Mutual Insurance Company moves the court for an order compelling Plaintiff Robert Ames to serve further responses to Defendant's discovery request on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed, without justification, to serve full, complete and proper responses to Defendant's discovery requests.

A motion to compel further responses be brought based on responses to requests for admission ("RFA") that: (1) provide evasive or incomplete answers; or (2) make unmeritorious or overly-generalized objections. (CCP Sec. 2033.290(a).) However, a motion to compel further responses cannot compel the admission of matters already denied. (Holguin v. Superior Court (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 812, 821.)

Defendant contends it served requests for admissions on Plaintiff on December 9, 2025. (Exh. A.) Plaintiff, however, objected that the requests for admissions were unsigned. Although a minor clerical error, Defendant resent the requests, with signature, on January 5, 2026. (Exh. B.) Plaintiff provided responses to Defendant's Requests for Admissions on February 11, 2026. (Exh. C.) Plaintiff's "responses" included numerous objections to relevance without an actual response and misidentified the responding party in many areas.

On February 15, 2026, Defendant sent Plaintiff a meet-and-confer letter outlining the deficiencies in his responses. (Exh. D.) Defense counsel also made numerous attempts to speak with Plaintiff on the phone, given his pro per status. (Feasel Decl.) After finally speaking, Plaintiff agreed to amend his responses. On April 24, 2026, and May 18, 2026, amended responses were received from Plaintiff. (Exh. E.) However, Plaintiff failed to correct most, if not all, of the various deficiencies in his responses.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues the motion is untimely as it was filed after the statutory 45-day deadline. The court agrees. As noted by Plaintiff, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(c), a motion to compel further responses must be filed within 45 days after service of the allegedly insufficient responses unless the parties have agreed to a later specific date in writing. If the motion is not filed within this time, the right to compel further responses is waived, as this 45-day limit is "mandatory and jurisdictional." (Mullikin Med. Ctr.) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

As noted by Defendant, Plaintiff initially responded to the discovery on February 11, 2026. Upon meeting and conferring, Plaintiff provided subsequent responses on April 24, 2026 and May 18, 2026, thus making the absolute latest Defendant could have filed a motion to compel further by July 2, 2026. Defendant, however, did not file and serve the motion until July 15, 2026. Because the 45-day limit is "mandatory and jurisdictional", the court must deny the motion to compel further.

Accordingly, Defendant Amica Mutual Insurance Company's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Further Responses to Discovery Requests is DENIED. | Home -->)" -->