Surdyk’s Decorating vs. McAllister
Motion to Reinstate Default
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
Discovery Motions
Plaintiff Gene Moran’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission and Form Interrogatories are CONTINUED to ___.
“All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion. The court, on noticed motion and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted notwithstanding this subdivision.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(g).)
No good cause has been shown to permit discovery prior to the ruling on the Anti-SLAPP motion currently scheduled for hearing on 11/12/26.
19 23-01343055 Motion to Reinstate Default
Surdyk's Decorating vs. Plaintiff’s request to reinstate default and default judgment against McAllister Douglas McAllister is CONTINUED to___.
Plaintiff has informed the Court that the probate court continued the hearing to reopen the estate to December 9, 2026. Thus, this hearing shall be continued to allow for the probate court to complete its hearing regarding the reopening of the estate.
Additionally, the Court orders the 3-year time limitation on serving a defendant, tolled (from 1/27/25 to present) for impossibility. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.210(a), 583.420(d).)
20 25-01533027 Motion to Strike - Anti SLAPP
Zuniga vs. 4Gen Defendants 4Gen Digital, Inc., Craig M. Thomas, Jacqueline Thomas, Digital, Inc. and Alexandria C. Phillips’ Special Motion to Strike the Complaint (Anti-SLAPP) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Defendants’ evidentiary objections
Defendants object to certain portions of the Declaration of Gilberto Orozco Zuniga.
Defendants’ objections are SUSTAINED.
Plaintiff’s allegations
Plaintiff Gilberto Orozco Zuniga filed a complaint against Defendants 4Gen Digital, Inc., Craig M. Thomas, Jacqueline Thomas, and Alexandria C. Phillips alleging the following causes of action in connection with his employment with Defendants:
1) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(h); 2) Disability Discrimination Perceived Disability - FEHA Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a);
Cited authorities
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?”