Quant vs. General Motors, LLC

4. 30-2026-01566933 1. Order to Show Cause (re: Transfer of Structured Settlement Payments) In re: Petition of CBC Settlement Funding, *** No Tentative Ruling- it appears the court already signed the operative Order.** LLC

7. 30-2025-01492743 1. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Sam’s Real Estate ***Court already ruled on this Motion on 3/19/26.*** Business Trust vs. West Coast Fullerton Crossings, LLC

8. 30-2024-01440007 1. Case Management Conference 2. Motion to Compel Production Quant vs. General 3. Motion to Deem Facts Admitted Motors, LLC Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”) filed two discovery motions: (1) motion to compel Plaintiff Nicole L. Quant (“Plaintiff”) to provide verified responses to Request for Production, Set One and (2) motion to deem Requests for Admission, Set One admitted against Plaintiff. Defendant did not request sanctions in either motion.

Plaintiff’s counsel opposed the motion, stating that Plaintiff has not provided verified responses to the discovery because counsel has been unable to reach or “establish contact with Plaintiff” and this “matter is presently burdened by a recent breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.” Plaintiff’s counsel asks the Court to deny the motion or order a brief continuance to allow counsel to reestablish contact with Plaintiff.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, a party who fails to serve timely responses to requests for production waives any objection to the requested discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) The party propounding the requests for production may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

“Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45– day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

Monetary sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses to requests for production, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Here, the discovery at issue was served on 01/02/2025. Plaintiff has not provided any responses. The Court is not persuaded by the opposition’s request for additional time to provide the discovery. Well-over a year has passed since the discovery responses were due and this egregious delay is not in the interest of justice. The Court will not continue the hearing on this motion to allow Plaintiff additional time to respond. Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit and must participate in the discovery process.

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide verified responses without objections to Requests for Production, Set One within 30 days.

No sanctions were requested and therefore no sanctions are awarded.

MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides that if a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party waives any objection to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) The requesting party may also move for an order that the genuineness of documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280. subds. (a)-(b).)

The court shall deem the matters admitted unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Monetary sanctions are mandatory against the party or attorney who necessitated the motion unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Ibid.)

Here, the discovery at issue was served on 01/02/2025. Plaintiff has not provided any responses.

Unless Plaintiff provides verified responses to Requests for Admission, Set One before the hearing on the motion, the motion will be GRANTED and Requests for Admission, Set One will be deemed admitted against Plaintiff.

No sanctions were requested and therefore no sanctions are awarded.

Defendant to give notice. 9. 30-2025-01527789 1. Case Management Conference 2. Motion-Other Tai Fung Bank Limited (for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for Service of Cross-Complaint) vs. Hui 3. Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) 4. Motion to Dismiss

Motion to Dismiss Cross-Complaint:

Plaintiff/cross-defendant Tai Fung Bank Unlimited (“Tai Fung”) moves for an order dismissing the Cross-Complaint of defendant/cross-complainant Shen Hui (“Shen”) pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the existence of an exclusive forum selection clause. Alternatively, Tai Fung requests a finding that each claim asserted in Shen’s Cross-Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.

“ ‘In a contract dispute in which the parties’ agreement contains a forum selection clause, a threshold issue in a forum non conveniens motion is whether the forum selection clause is mandatory or permissive.’ ” (Korman v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 206, 215.) “A clause is mandatory if it requires the parties to litigate their disputes exclusively in the designated forum, and it is permissive if it merely requires the parties to submit to jurisdiction in the designated forum. A permissive forum selection clause is subject to traditional forum non