MALCOLM DURHAM VS. DIANA C. GUADALUPE CHIPANA, ET AL.

August 25, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 30 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 7 26-CIV-03316 MALCOLM DURHAM VS. DIANA C. GUADALUPE CHIPANA, ET AL.

MALCOLM DURHAM PRO SE DIANA C. GUADALUPE CHIPANA PRO SE

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING HEARING ON DEMURRER

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated below, Defendant Diana Guadalupe Chipana’s dba Wealth Recovery Solutions (“Defendant”) “Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Hearing on Demurrer,” filed July 17, 2026, is DENIED.

Background. Plaintiff filed this case on April 29, 2026. The Complaint seeks (1) to set aside a default judgment entered against Plaintiff in a prior lawsuit in the Santa Clara County Superior Court; (2) to set aside all charging orders against Plaintiff’s interest in Vida Capital Group, LLC; (3) “dismissal” of the underlying lawsuit filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court; (4) a finding that Defendant has violated Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; and (5) damages for “abuse of legal process.” Defendant Chipana has filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, arguing that all of Plaintiff’s asserted claims are barred as a matter of law. The demurrer hearing is set for September 22, 2026 (less than one month from now).

According to Defendant’s moving papers, on June 16, 2026, Plaintiff served three sets of written discovery on Defendant: (1) Form Interrogatories (Set One); (2) Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”) (Set One), and (3) Requests for Admission (“RFAs”). According to the motion, Defendant’s responses to the foregoing discovery requests was due on July 21, 2026 (about one month ago).

Defendant’s motion argues that the Court is likely to sustain Defendant’s demurrer to all asserted claims, and therefore, that good cause exists to relieve Defendant of the expense/burden of responding to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories and RFPs, and the burden of producing responsive documents, until thirty (30) days after service of notice of entry of the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s demurrer. The motion asks for two alternative forms of relief, but they are essentially the same request, worded slightly differently. (See Notice of Motion.)

Application. The motion is denied. Defendant asks the Court to deviate from the normal rules governing discovery. As a general rule, the filing of a demurrer does not stay discovery. Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.020, subdivision (b) and 2031.020, subdivision (b) provide that a plaintiff may propound interrogatories and requests for production of documents to a defendant ten (10) days after service of the summons on, or appearance by, the defendant. Discovery normally proceeds, regardless of whether the pleadings are at issue. Defendant’s motion essentially asks the Court to predict the outcome of the demurrer, and to suspend Plaintiff’s

August 25, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 31 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ statutory discovery rights before the demurrer has been decided. The Court finds no compelling reason why this case should be treated as an exception to the general rule.

The case law cited by Defendant does not persuade the Court to reach a different conclusion. The court in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 541 recognized that trial courts have discretion to stay discovery, but also that courts must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery. Terminals Equip. Co. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 234, 245 involved a discovery stay issued after the trial court had sustained a demurrer on grounds that plaintiff failed to state any cause of action, and where plaintiff was seeking production of privileged documents.

In Silver v. City of Los Angeles (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 673, 674, the trial court disallowed certain discovery after the court had ruled that plaintiff’s second amended complaint failed to state any cause of action. The court in Pacific Architects Collaborative v. State of California (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 110, 126 found that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in barring certain depositions until after a ruling on a dispositive motion for summary judgment. Coriell v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 487, 489 held that a trial court had improperly stayed discovery in a class action case pending a ruling on a motion involving plaintiff’s class status.

None of these cases support Defendant’s request for a discovery stay here. Instead, as the Court of Appeal stated over thirty-five years ago and the statement remains true today, “Pleading deficiencies generally do not affect either party's right to conduct discovery...” (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436; Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial, 21 8:58 (June 2026 update).)

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.