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

RHN AUTOMOTIVE INC., dba NISSANI BROS. NISSAN v. LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Motion to Compel SJS Long Beach, LLC's Compliance with Subpoena for Production of Records

Hearing date
Aug 31, 2026
Department
508
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

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

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 508) August 31, 2026 DEPARTMENT 508 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

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 31, 2026 | Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. ORDER RE: DEFENDANT LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO COMPEL SJS LONG BEACH, LLC'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 SJS Long Beach, LLC, on August 14, 2025 and served on August 21, 2025, directing SJS Long Beach, LLC to produce all records in its possession and control responsive to the subpoena.

Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions against SJS Long Beach, LLC 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 31, 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. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this Order. DATED: August 31, 2026 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number: 25STCV16840 Hearing Date: August 31, 2026 Dept: 508 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 508 RED ROOF, INC.

Plaintiff, vs. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. | Case No.: | 25STCV16840 | Hearing Date: | August 31, 2026 | Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT Velocity Commercial Capital, LLC's DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT

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