DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CVRI2303819·riverside·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing 1 day agoDENIED

MURILLO vs INNOVATIVE HORIZONS CHARTER SCHOOL

MOTION TO COMPEL: FURTHER RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
10
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMURILLO
DefendantINNOVATIVE HORIZONS CHARTER SCHOOL

Ruling

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL: FURTHER MURILLO vs RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S CVRI2303819 INNOVATIVE HORIZONS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, CHARTER SCHOOL SET ONE Tentative Ruling:

Denied. The Motion is untimely. CCP §2030.300(c).

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER MURILLO vs RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S CVRI2303819 INNOVATIVE HORIZONS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, CHARTER SCHOOL SET ONE

Tentative Ruling:

Denied. The Motion is untimely. CCP §2030.300(c).

3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF JANE DOE #2 (C.C.)'S MOTION TO DOE #1 (M.A.) vs QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY MASSAGE GREEN CVRI2501638 DEFENDANTS GREEN MAGNOLIA, INTERNATIONAL LLC AND JABREY ELJAHMI; AND FRANCHISE CORP. REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS Tentative Ruling:

The Court finds that the Motion is MOOT because Defendants have withdrawn the three subpoenas at issue. The Court issues sanctions against Defendants and their counsel in the amount of $1060 ($500/hour x 2 hours + $60 filing fee) to be paid within fourteen days of this Order.

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