RONAL LIMA vs JASPAL SINGH, et al.
Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
2024CUPA023751: RONAL LIMA vs JASPAL SINGH, et al. 09/08/2026 in Department 41 Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Below is the Courts tentative decision with respect to the matter on calendar. The Court may adopt, modify, or change the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court.
Plaintiff Ronal Lima (Plaintiff) has applied ex parte for an order shortening time to hear Plaintiffs Motion to Compel defendant Jaspal Singh (Defendant) to attend and testify at a deposition and a related request for monetary sanctions. The motion is presently reserved for October 22, 2026, but trial is set for November 2, 2026. Defendants Singh and M&D Freight, Inc. do not oppose an order shortening time or the establishment of a reasonable briefing schedule. Defendants, however, request that any such order expressly preserve all substantive matters for the subsequent hearing.
The court grants the motion to shorten time to advance the hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, with all substantive matters expressly preserved.
The court sets the following schedule:
[to be confirmed at the ex parte hearing, if the courts final ruling grants the application:
• Hearing on September 18, 206 at 8:20 a.m. with Defendants opposition due September 11, 2026 and Plaintiffs reply, if any, due September 15, 2026; or • Hearing on September 24, 2026 at 8:20 a.m. with Defendants opposition due September 14, 2026 and Plaintiffs reply, if any, due September 18, 2026; or • Hearing on September 30, 2026 at 8:20 a.m. with Defendants opposition due September 21, 2026 and Plaintiffs reply, if any, due September 25, 2026.]
1
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?”