GUTIERREZ, ELVA vs MADRIGAL, MIGUEL

depositions are subject to the restrictions of section 1989. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1107, as modified (July 28, 2011). Notably the Court in Toyota Motor Corp, supra expressly disagreed with Glass v and expressly declined to follow it. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 1107 at 1124).

Plaintiff did not object to either deposition notice on grounds of location, foreign residency, or Code of Civil Procedure section 1989, supporting a finding that Plaintiff waived objections to same. However, the Court finds said waiver insufficient to overcome the limitations of Civil Procedure section 1989. Defendant's request to compel Plaintiff's personal attendance in California is therefore denied. Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is also accordingly denied based on the court's finding that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in failing to attend the noticed in person deposition

Plaintiff shall appear for remote videoconference deposition within 45 days. The parties are to meet and confer to agree on a date and time for said deposition.

CV-26-000478 - DONAHUE, JOSEPH THOMAS vs MAYOL, TRENTON - a) Defendants Pacific Southwest Container, LLC and Trenton Mayol S Demurrer to Plaintiff Joseph Thomas Donahue S First Amended Complaint -- CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion. b) Defendants Pacific Southwest Container, LLC and Trenton Mayol S Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff Joseph Thomas Donahue S First Amended Complaint - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion.

a) The Court notes Plaintiff's failure to respond to Defendants' meet and confer correspondence and total failure to engage in the statutorily required meet and confer process. Code of Civ. Proc. Sec.430.41. In fact, Plaintiff's Opposition makes no reference whatsoever to his meet and confer obligations - did not deny receiving same, did not address meet and confer obligations, and did not explain his failure to engage in the required meet and confer. Accordingly, this motion is continued to September 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court for the required meet and confer to take place "in person, by telephone, or by video conference" and for a determination of whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections raised in the demurrer.

The parties shall file a Joint Status Statement no later than September 22, 2026, detailing their meet and confer efforts and advising the Court as to the status of the demurrer. The parties are advised that good faith meet and confer communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, including a meaningful assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party's position in light of all available information. (Townsend v. Superior Court(EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v.

Superior Court(Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424).

b) The Court notes Plaintiff's failure to respond to Defendants' meet and confer correspondence and total failure to engage in the statutorily required meet and confer process. Code of Civ. Proc. Sec.435.5. In fact, Plaintiff's Opposition makes no reference whatsoever to his meet and confer obligations - did not deny receiving same, did not address meet and confer obligations, and did not explain his failure to engage in the required meet and confer. Accordingly, this motion is continued to September 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court for the required meet and confer to take place "in person, by telephone, or by video conference" and for a determination of whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections raised in the demurrer.

The parties shall file a Joint Status Statement no later than no later than September 22, 2026, detailing their meet and confer efforts and advising the Court as to the status of the motion to strike. The parties are advised that good faith meet and confer communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, including a meaningful assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party's position in light of all available information. (Townsend v. Superior Court(EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v.

Superior Court(Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424).

CV-26-000481 - GUTIERREZ, ELVA vs MADRIGAL, MIGUEL - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED. Good cause existing Albert Bagdasarian Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff Elva Guttierez's motion for leave to withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff is hereby granted. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362).