Forrester, Inc. v. National Tour Integrated Resources, Inc., et al.

(Torrance Courthouse: Dept. M) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT M LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Dept. M issues tentative rulings in many, but not all motion hearings. There is no set time at which tentatives are posted. Please do not call the staff to inquire if a tentative will be posted. If parties are satisfied with the ruling, parties may submit on the tentative. However, if an opposing party does not submit, they will be permitted to argue. Please check with the other side before calling the courtroom to submit. The staff does not keep track of which parties submitted and which did not, so please do not ask. If a matter is also a scheduling hearing (CMC, TSC, OSC etc) an appearance is still required even if a party submits on the tentative ruling.

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT - SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Amy N. Carter Department M Wednesday, August 26, 2026 Calendar No. PROCEEDINGS Eastland Forrester, Inc. v. National Tour Integrated Resources, Inc., et al.

Andretti Autosport Holding Company, LLC's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One Andretti Autosport Holding Company, LLC's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

Andretti Autosport Holding Company, LLC's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, are granted.

Background

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on April 3, 2024. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff contracted with Defendant National Tour Integrated Resources, Inc. Pursuant to the contract, Plaintiff agreed to manufacture and install a custom-built structure for the benefit of Defendant Andretti Autosport Holding Company, Inc. Plaintiff has not been fully paid pursuant to the agreement. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: 1. Possession of Personal Property; 2. Conversion; 3. Trespass to Personal Property; 4. Breach of Contract.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories/Requests for Production of Documents

Where responses to interrogatories have been served but the requesting party believes that they are deficient because the answers are evasive or incomplete, or, because an objection is without merit, that party may move for an order compelling a further response. CCP Sec. 2030.300(a). Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days after service of verified responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses. CCP Sec. 2030.300(c). The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration in compliance with CCP Sec. 2016.040. CCP Sec. 2030.300(b).

A party responding to an inspection demand shall respond to each demand with one of the following: a statement the party will comply with the demand, a representation the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.210, subd. (a).) A response to an inspection demand may be inadequate because it is evasive or incomplete; contains an incomplete statement of compliance; an inadequate, incomplete, or evasive representation of inability to comply; or meritless or overly general objections to a demand. (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (a).) If a demanding party believes the responding party responded inadequately, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (a).) "Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (c).)

Meet and Confer

Defendant set forth meet and confer declarations in sufficient compliance with CCP Sec.Sec. 2030.300, 2031.310, and 2016.040. (Declarations, Chris S. Pacetti, P.P. 5-7).

Motions to Compel

Defendant moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff to Defendant's Form Interrogatories, Set One - Nos. 17.1, 50.1, and 50.2. Form Interrogatories Nos. 17.1, 50.1, and 50.2 seek basic information regarding Plaintiff's contentions in the Complaint as well as information regarding Plaintiff's claimed damages. A simple review of the responses reveals that the responses are non-responsive, inadequate, incomplete, and/or evasive. In addition, Plaintiff failed to justify its objections. Therefore, Defendant's motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories 17.1, 50.1, and 50.2 is granted.

Defendant moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff to Defendant's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1-25. Plaintiff failed to submit a response in substantial compliance with CCP Sec. 2031.210 et seq. The responses are inadequate, incomplete, and/or evasive. Instead, Plaintiff served substantially identical responses to each of the requests essentially asserting boilerplate objections and, thereafter, contending that documents would be produced pursuant to a protective order. In addition, Plaintiff failed to justify its objections. Plaintiff failed to file any written oppositions to the motions.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses to the discovery items at issue in these motions - Form Interrogatories Nos. 17.1, 50.1, and 50.2 and Request for Production of Documents 1 to 25, without objections, within 20 days of this date. Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court's ruling.

Case Number: 25TRCV00106 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: M CONFIDENTIAL COURT DOCUMENT (For Judge and Court Staff Only) Honorable Amy N. Carter Wednesday, August 26, 2026 Department M Calendar No. PROCEEDINGS Esther Zavala Saldana v. Sanghyun An, et al. 25TRCV00106 1. Sanghyun An, M.D.'s Motion for Summary Judgment TENTATIVE RULING Sanghyun An, M.D.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

Background

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 13, 2025. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed dental malpractice related to a root canal treatment causing Plaintiff's injuries.

Objections

Plaintiffs' Objections Plaintiff's objections 1 to 9 are overruled. Plaintiff objected to statements made in the separate statement of facts. Plaintiff did not set forth objections to evidence in the manner required by Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1354(b). Plaintiff did not quote the specific objectionable piece of evidence, but, instead, quoted Defendant's statements made in the separate statement of facts.

Defendant's Objections Defendant's objections 1 to 35 are overruled.

Motion for Summary Judgment The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or