DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25STCV08881·la·Civil·Contract
Hearing todayCONTINUED

RHN Automotive Inc., dba Nissani Bros. Nissan v. Landmark American Insurance Company

Motion to compel New Generation Development Group, Inc.'s compliance with subpoena for production of records

Hearing date
Aug 26, 2026
Department
508
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$3,900

Parties

PlaintiffRHN Automotive Inc., dba Nissani Bros. Nissan
DefendantLandmark American Insurance Company

Ruling

DATED: August 26, 2026 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Because there is a jury trial in Dept. 508 starting at 10 a.m., the Informal Discovery Conference was moved to 12:15 p.m.

CONTINUED BECAUSE THE COURT DID NOT RECEIVE THE REQUISITE COURTESY COPIES OF THE MOVING AND REPLY PAPERS. Case Number: 25STCV08881 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 508 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 508 RHN AUTOMOTIVE INC., dba NISSANI BROS. NISSAN, Plaintiff, vs. LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. | Case No.: |

| Hearing Date: | August 26, 2026 | Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. ORDER RE: DEFENDANT LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO COMPEL NEW GENERATION DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.'S COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS |

Defendant Landmark American Insurance Company ("Defendant") moves for an order enforcing the Subpoena for Business Records issued to third-party New Generation Development Group, Inc., on August 14, 2025 and served on August 26, 2025, directing New Generation Development Group, Inc. to produce all records in its possession and control responsive to the subpoena. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions against New Generation Development Group, Inc. in the amount of $3,900.

Defendant's motion will be continued to a new date as set forth below. NO HEARING WILL TAKE PLACE ON AUGUST 26, 2026.

Pursuant to the Court's power to "amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 128, subd. (a)(8)), the Court orders the parties in this case to participate in a meet and confer with the Court ("Informal Discovery Conference" or "IDC"). Lead or other designated counsel for the parties with full authority are ordered to participate in person in an IDC.

After consulting with opposing counsel regarding available dates, Defendant must make a prompt reservation for the IDC using the Court's online reservation system. Defendant must file Dept. 508's one-page IDC form in the department seven days prior to the IDC, and the responding parties may file the same form in the department setting forth a response three days prior to the IDC. Once Defendant confirms an IDC date, Defendant must use the Court's online reservation system to continue the motion to a post-IDC discovery hearing date.

The parties are ordered to have with them whatever materials are needed to make the IDC session productive and successful. Prior to the IDC date, lead or other designated counsel for the parties, with full authority, are to meet and confer, in person or via telephone in a further attempt to resolve as many of the issues as possible before the IDC. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.670(f)(2).)

If the parties resolve their discovery disputes before the IDC date, Defendant is ordered to take both the IDC and the motion off calendar as soon as possible. Additionally, parties are reminded that courtesy copies of moving, opposing and reply papers must be delivered to Dept. 508 concurrently with filing. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: August 26, 2026 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: 25STCV10636 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 508 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 508 YADIRA DEL CARMEN QUINONEZ CENTENO, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. METRI NASH, Defendant. | Case No.: | 25STCV10636

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