DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
4·orange·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing todayCONTINUED

G. vs. Los Alamitos Unified School District

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

Hearing date
Sep 3, 2026
Department
C10
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 30, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffG.
DefendantLos Alamitos Unified School District

Ruling

Additionally, regardless, the CCRAA assumes violations can be measured in monetary damages. (See, e.g., Civ. Code, § 1785.31.)

While the CCRAA allows for injunctive relief (See Civ. Code, § 1785.31, subd. (b)), it is not clear what injunctive relief could be issued, at this time: Plaintiffs request the Court issue an order enjoining Defendant from “[r]etaining or disseminating any derogatory credit information relating to Plaintiffs....” (Motion: 11:11-13 [ROA No. 142].) However, this language is overbroad as it would prevent Defendant from reporting future delinquencies.

Moreover, as indicated above, it is not clear that Plaintiffs are fully current on the loan. At best, Plaintiffs declare that payments were made in October through December of 2025.

Based on the above, Plaintiffs’ request for an order enjoining Defendant from “[i]nitiating, recording, or pursuing any foreclosure activity,” is likewise overbroad. (Motion: 11:11-13 [ROA No. 142].) Further, there has been no showing that a foreclosure has commenced.

In addition to seeking a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs request multiple forms of additional relief, including: (1) An order cancelling or removing the Deed of Trusts, pursuant to Civil Code sections 3412 and 3413, as to Plaintiff Cynthia L. Ticey. (Motion: 3:18-22 [ROA No. 142]); (2) Financial Elder Abuse remedies under Welfare & Institutions Code sections 15610.30 and 15657.5 (Motion: 6:26-27 [ROA No. 142]); and (3) Punitive damages. (Motion: 6:28 [ROA No. 142]; See also “Prayer for Relief” at 10:22-12:3 [ROA No. 142].)

Plaintiffs have cited no authority that allows for any such relief, provisionally.

The Case Management Conference is continued to December 03, 2026, at 09:00 am in Department C10.

Moving Party to give notice.

4 G. vs. Los Alamitos This case is part of the pilot Dedicated Discovery Department Program. As Unified School set forth below, all pending discovery motions are set for an Informal District Discovery Conference (IDC) before Judge Andre De La Cruz.

To the extent the discovery motions are not resolved through the IDC process, the motions are assigned to and will be heard by Judge De La Cruz at the Costa Mesa Justice Complex in Department CM02. The case otherwise shall remain assigned to the presently assigned judicial officer for all purposes, including trial.

All parties involved in the discovery dispute are ordered to appear at an Informal Discovery Conference, scheduled at the same time as all pending discovery motions, as follows:

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (ROA #149) is continued to 09/30/2026 at 09:00 AM in Department CM02.

On the foregoing date, the discovery motion(s) will be set for calendaring purposes only; no hearing on the merits will be conducted at that time. The parties shall not file any opposition or reply briefs prior to the IDC. The only document relating to the motion(s) to be filed prior to the IDC is a joint letter brief.

At the conclusion of the IDC, if the motion(s) is/are not fully resolved, the Court will set a hearing date for the motion(s) and a briefing schedule for the opposition and reply briefs.

The parties are ordered to file a single joint letter brief not to exceed four pages, inclusive of any header and signatures, which summarizes all pending discovery disputes. The joint letter brief shall:

1. Be submitted in letter format; 2. Single spaced, with no less than 11-point font and standard 1-inch margins throughout, 3. Not in pleading form.

4. Counsel must attest that counsel met and conferred in person, by phone, or by videoconference, to include the date and length of the meeting; and 5. Concisely summarize all issues that counsel were unable to resolve.

The parties may not file multiple joint letter briefs irrespective of the number of disputes then at issue. If there are multiple disputes at issue, the parties may provide a list of disputes as part of the joint letter brief. The joint letter brief may cite to limited and specific legal authority only for resolution of dispositive issues. The joint letter brief may not be accompanied by declarations or exhibits.

The parties shall file the joint letter brief no less than five (5) court days prior to the IDC.

Counsel are ordered to appear in person for the IDC. Counsel appearing at the IDC must have authority to fully resolve all discovery issues in dispute.

Failure to adhere to this Order will subject the parties and/or counsel to sanctions pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Sections 128.5 and/or 177.5. Court orders Clerk to give notice.

11

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