Murphy v. Last Mile Tech, LLC

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 514) September 1, 2026 DEPARTMENT 514 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

23STCV03131 Motion of Plaintiff's Counsel to be Relieved Tentative Ruling The motion of Derrick F. Coleman, Esq., and Coleman Frost, LLP to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant iSign International, Inc. is GRANTED. All substantive and procedural requirements are satisfied. The order granting the motion to be relieved is NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL moving counsel files with the Court proof of service of the signed order (not the Minute Order) on the client. Moving counsel is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 24STCV24592 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: 514 Nava v. Guevara 24STCV24592 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Tentative Ruling The motion is DENIED.

On April 23, 2026, the Court ordered Defendants to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $1,400 by May 26, 2026. Defendants have not complied. (Ekekeula Decl., P. 3.) Plaintiff now seeks an order enforcing the prior sanctions order. This request is denied as unnecessary. The Court made an order. Defendants are required by law to comply with it. A new order requiring a party to comply with a prior order adds nothing.

Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions for the failure of Defendants to pay sanctions. The Court, in its discretion, denies this request as well. Plaintiff has an order requiring Defendants to pay sanctions. An order requiring the payment of monetary sanctions is enforceable in the same manner as a judgment. Interest is due on unpaid amounts at the legal rate. Where, as here, there is no showing that the Defendants have failed to provide information, documents, or testimony as required under the Civil Discovery Act, and there is no showing of prejudice to Plaintiff in connection with preparing for trial, the Court declines to impose a further monetary sanction at this time. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25STCV03782 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: 514 Murphy v. Last Mile Tech, LLC

Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Answer of Defendant Last Mile Tech, LLC Tentative Ruling

The motion to strike the answer of Defendant Last Mile Tech, LLC ("Defendant") is GRANTED. Defendant is a corporate entity and can appear in court only through counsel. Defendant previously appeared and filed an answer to the complaint and amended complaint through counsel. On April 13, 2026, the Court granted the motion of Defendant's counsel to be relieved. Defendant has been unrepresented since that date and continues to be unrepresented. No opposition to the motion has been filed. As Defendant is not represented by counsel, cannot represent itself, and has not opposed the motion, the Court now GRANTS the motion and STRIKES the Answer of Defendant Last Mile Tech, LLC to the First Amended Complaint.

All substantive and procedural requirements are satisfied. Plaintiff may now file a Request for Entry of Default as to Defendant Last Mile Tech, LLC. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25STCV04353 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: 514 Chairez v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 25STCV20343 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) Tentative Ruling The motion is denied. The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

This case arises out of the purchase of a 2017 Honda Pilot by Evelyn Chairez and Eddie Chairez (collectively "Plaintiffs"). On February 14, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the complaint in action against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("Defendant") and Does 1 through 10. On September 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint with the same causes of action against Defendant. On November 5, 2025, Defendant filed an answer. On July 14, 2026, Plaintiffs filed this motion to compel Defendant to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two). Plaintiffs also seek sanctions. On August 19, 2026, Defendant filed an opposition, along with its own request for sanctions. No reply has been filed. Trial is set for December 20, 2027.

Legal Standard

"On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (a).) Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be 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 propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing." (Id., subd. (c).)

A motion to compel further responses must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery and must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration and a separate statement or, in the discretion of the Court, a "concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute." (Id., subd. (b)(1)-(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.) "[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against