Singh vs. JBT Aerotech Corporation

3. Costs Associated with Motion to Compel and IDC Proceedings:

Defendant also seeks to tax $97.50 in filing and electronic filing or service fees related to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and the associated IDC proceedings. Defendant argues the costs were unnecessary because Plaintiff withdrew the motion shortly before the August 18, 2025, IDC, despite Defendant’s meet-and-confer efforts and offers to extend the motion deadline while it reevaluated its discovery responses. Defendant further contends Plaintiff withdrew the motion because counsel would not appear in person for the IDC.

Plaintiff, in opposition, contends that the motion was reasonably necessary when filed because Defendant’s discovery responses were deficient and Defendant repeatedly sought additional time to reevaluate and supplement them. Plaintiff further explains that the Motion was withdrawn because counsel lacked an attorney available to attend the August 18, 2025, in-person IDC.

Filing and motion fees are expressly allowable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(1). Fees for electronic filing or service are likewise recoverable where the court requires electronic filing or service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(14).) Such costs, however, must still be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.

Defendant has not shown that the challenged costs were unnecessary. The record reflects ongoing discovery disputes and Defendant’s requests for additional time to reevaluate and supplement its responses. Plaintiff’s later withdrawal of the Motion does not establish that the related costs were unnecessary when incurred.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to the $97.50 in filing and electronic filing or service fees associated with the Motion to Compel and related IDC proceedings.

Defendant to give notice.

11 Singh vs. JBT TENTATIVE RULING: Aerotech Corporation For the reasons set forth below, Counsel Marc Grossman’s unopposed motion to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Jaswinder Singh is GRANTED.

Counsel Marc Grossman is ORDERED to submit to this court a revised proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved

as Counsel– Civil (Form MC-053) removing from the order the deposition rescheduling in paragraph 8.

Counsel shall be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff effective upon the filing of a proof of service to the client and all parties showing timely service of the signed Form MC-053 and notice of this ruling.

The court finds that Counsel has complied with the requirements of Rule 3.1362 of the California Rules of Court, including serving the client with the motion papers by mail, after confirming within the last 30 days that the address is the client’s current address. Counsel also has declared a justifiable reason to be relieved as counsel — breakdown of the relationship with the client. (See Form MC-052 Attorney Decl. ¶ 2.)

Therefore, the court will grant the motion to be relieved as counsel.

Counsel does not state when Plaintiff’s deposition is set to occur. Furthermore, Counsel does not state if Defendants’ counsel agreed to rescheduling the deposition that was (presumably) noticed. The court will not order rescheduling without this information.

Moving Counsel shall give notice.

12 Smith vs. TENTATIVE RULING: Mendez Motion for Summary Judgment

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Susan Mendez’s motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff Thomas Smith is DENIED.

Defendant’s objections are overruled. The court notes Objection Nos. 1-6 concern evidence that Defendant also submitted in support of her motion for summary judgment.

Statement of Law

“Summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Civil Proc. Code, § 437c, subd. (c).)