Plaintiff v. Roberto D. Cajulis

notice by email. Plaintiff alleges that he purchased a Chipotle burrito and bit into an avocado stem that cracked and chipped his tooth. Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. moves to compel responses to form and special interrogatories and requests for production of documents propounded upon Plaintiff, as well as an order deeming admitted requests for admission. Defendant also requests the imposition of sanctions.

The hearing on Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.'s motions to compel responses to form and special interrogatories, set one, requests for production of documents and for an order deeming admitted requests for admission, and for sanctions, as against Plaintiff were continued to this date. Defendant served these motions by electronic service only. However, "[u] nrepresented persons are exempt from any mandatory electronic filing imposed pursuant to this subdivision." (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 1010.6(f)(2).)

Self-represented parties or self-represented persons are to be served by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.251(c)(3)(B).) Defendant was previously ordered to serve the motions and notice of the continuance by mail upon Plaintiff. However, notice of these motions were served by mail on August 12, 2026, which is only 16 court days plus 1 calendar day prior to the September 4, 2026 hearing date. An additional 4 calendar days for service by mail was required. (Code Civ.

Proc. Sec. 1005(b).) As such, the hearing on Defendant's motions to compel responses to form and special interrogatories, set one, requests for production of documents and for an order deeming admitted requests for admission, and for sanctions, as against Plaintiff is CONTINUED to October 5, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. Defendant to give notice of the continuance by mail forthwith. If Defendant does not establish proper, timely service of notice for the October 5, 2026 hearing date, the Court will order the motions off calendar for repeated failure to serve statutory notice in the manner required by statute.

The following tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at DATE \@ "h:mm am/pm" 12:41 PM on DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" September 3, 2026. Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1) provides that a "tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if the court has not directed oral argument by its tentative ruling and notice of intent to appear has not been given." The Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. Notice of intent to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1).

No later than 4:00 p.m. on DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" September 3, 2026, the moving and opposing parties must provide notice to ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 734 whether the party intends to (1) appear and argue the motion, or (2) submit to the tentative ruling. Notice to Department 734 should be sent by email to smcdept734@lacourt.org, with opposing parties copied on the email. The high volume of telephone calls to Department 734 may delay the Court's receipt of notice, so telephonic notice to 213-830-0776 should be reserved for situations where parties are unable to give notice by email.

Defendant, Plaintiff's brother, allegedly opened up a loan account at the Navy Federal Credit Union in Plaintiff's name without Plaintiff's knowledge or authorization pursuant to a power of attorney for Plaintiff, and forged Plaintiff's signature on the promissory note, security agreement and disclosure. Defendant obtained $20,000 and never repaid Plaintiff for the funds Defendant procured. Moreover, Defendant has failed to account to Plaintiff for Defendant's management of Plaintiff's real property.

Further, Defendant has opened up credit card accounts in Plaintiff's name with Plaintiff's consent for use exclusively with partnership business, but instead Defendant charged items to his personal use, but has refused to pay Plaintiff for these expenses. Defendant has also opened upon a credit account and lines of credit in Plaintiff's name without Plaintiff's authorization and made numerous charges, but has refused to pay Plaintiff for such charges. Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint seeking a determination as to the respective rights and duties of the parties regarding the property that is the subject of the partnership business.

Defendant Roberto D. Cajulis moves to consolidate this case with related case 26STCV16991.

TENTATIVE RULING For the reasons set forth in the Opposition, Defendant Roberto D. Cajulis's motion to consolidate this case with related case 26STCV16991 is DENIED. There is no persuasive reason to consolidate this case--in which the Court issued a final Statement of Decision on March 11, 2026, and the appointment of a referee for accounting is pending--with 26STCV16992, which is not yet set for trial. To the extent that the Court's findings in the Statement of Decision in this case (BC672941) bear upon the issues in the quiet title case (26STCV16992), the Court will take such findings into consideration in its reasoning following the quiet title trial. | Home -->)" -->