DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV445456·santaclara·Civil·Contract
Hearing todayDENIED

North Mill Equipment Finance, LLC et al. v. RYAN PEACOCK et al.

Plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer of Ryan Peacock, Inc.

Hearing date
Aug 27, 2026
Department
10
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffNorth Mill Equipment Finance, LLC
DefendantRYAN PEACOCK
DefendantRyan Peacock, Inc.

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: August 27, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 24CV445456 North Mill Equipment Plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer of Ryan Peacock, Inc. Finance, LLC et al. v. Notice is proper and the motion is unopposed. The basis for the RYAN PEACOCK et al. motion is that a corporation cannot be self-represented. The corporation had counsel when it filed the answer. The court subsequently granted a motion by that counsel to withdraw. The corporate defendant’s failure to appear through counsel at future hearings (including the order to show cause hearing at 10:00 a.m. on August 27, 2026) may lead to the striking of the answer.

But plaintiff provides no authority to strike an answer filed by corporate counsel. The motion is DENIED. The court will prepare the order. Line 2 24CV447855 William Wortz v. Lea Click LINE 2 or scroll down for ruling. Schlemmer Line 3 24CV453911 Carlos Velasquez v. Ford Click LINE 3 or scroll down for ruling. Motor Company et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: August 27, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 7 25CV471183 Josselyn Mejia Alvarado Click LINE 7 or scroll down for ruling. v. Jacquelyn Martin Line 8 25CV471183 Josselyn Mejia Alvarado Click LINE 7 or scroll down for ruling. v. Jacquelyn Martin Line 9 24CV445456 North Mill Equipment (Continued from August 25, 2026.) Plaintiff’s discovery motion Finance, LLC et al. v. against individual defendant Ryan Peacock seeks three things: RYAN PEACOCK et al. initial responses to form interrogatories, set one (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290); initial responses to requests for production, set one (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.300); and that the court deem admitted requests for admission, set one (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280). Defendant did not respond to any of the discovery requests. On good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant Ryan Peacock is ordered to respond to the form interrogatories and requests for production, without objections, no later than September 28, 2026. The requests for admission are deemed admitted. The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant Ryan Peacock is ordered to pay plaintiff $900 in sanctions (three hours at the requested rate of $300/hour).

Moving party to submit proposed order restating this tentative decision and also listing verbatim the admissions to be admitted. - oo0oo -

4

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