DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV04071·butte·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing todayMixed

Jenkins, Nicholas et al v. Chico Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories; Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

Hearing date
Sep 2, 2026
Department
Law & Motion
Judge
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$2,000

Parties

PlaintiffNicholas Jenkins
DefendantChico Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP

Ruling

6. 24CV03276 Dommer, Jeanne v. Bushman, Katherine

EVENT: Application for Interlocutory Judgment Approving Partition by Sale of Real Property and Appointment of Real Estate Broker

The application is continued to September 30, 2026 at 9:00am for Plaintiff to submit the appraisal of TC Bradford and the buyout letter sent to Defendant tenant in common. Plaintiff shall nominate a licensed real estate broker to execute the transaction.

7-8. 24CV04071 Jenkins, Nicholas et al v. Chico Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP

EVENT: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One From Chico Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP dba Riverside Point Healthcare & Wellness Centre (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One from Chico Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP dba Riverside Point Healthcare & Wellness Centre

Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-10, 31-35,39 The motion is denied as moot in light of the second supplemental responses served after this motion was filed. However, as to these interrogatories Plaintiffs should not have been required to file this motion. Accordingly, the Court issues pro-rated sanctions in the amount of $2,000 payable within 20 days.

Nos. 37 & 38 The motion is GRANTED. Preliminarily, Defendant waived any objection based on CCP 2030.050 by failing to raise the objection in its initial discovery response.

3|Page

The Court approves Plaintiffs’ proposed opt-in letter procedure. In light of Plaintiff’s proposed procedure there is no serious invasion of privacy. (See Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 373) The Court approves the proposed notice and response card, with one modification. After the word “convenience”, the following sentence shall be added: “If you desire your contact information not be accessible to counsel for Plaintiff, you need not respond to this notice.”

At Plaintiff’s expense, Defendant shall mail the notice and response card to each resident from November 29, 2021 through March 18, 2023 and to each resident’s responsible party. Defendant shall mail the notices by October 7, 2026. Plaintiff shall reimburse Defendant within 10 days after receiving notice of the completed mailing. No name, address, telephone number, or fact of residency shall be disclosed to Plaintiffs or their counsel as to any individual who does not affirmatively respond. No individual who does not respond shall not be contacted further.

Any contact information voluntarily disclosed by a responding resident or responsible party shall be used solely for purposes of this litigation and destroyed upon conclusion.

Production of Documents The motion is granted in its entirety as unopposed. Defendant shall provide further responses within 14 days’ notice of this order. Defendant is sanctioned $2,000 payable within 20 days. Plaintiff shall prepare and submit the form of orders within 2 weeks.

9. 25CV00661 JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Bond, Ez A

EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order and judgment.

4|Page

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