Valenzuela v. Mutakabbir
Motion to compel further responses
Motion type
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Parties
Ruling
(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. O) September 8, 2026 DEPARTMENT O LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
September 8, 2026 24SMCV00775 (Valenzuela v. Mutakabbir) INSTANT MOTION On February 13, 2026, plaintiff Ashly Valenzuela (Plaintiff) filed the instant motion to compel further responses of defendant Kinyumba Mutakabbir (Defendant). No opposition has been filed. DISCUSSION Plaintiff's motion to compel further is DENIED on procedural grounds. The motion improperly combines motions to compel further responses to various discovery requests and fails to include a separate statement as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345. Additionally, it is not clear that Defendant has been properly served, as the proof of service indicates that the motion was served by electronic service, but there is no indication that the parties agreed to accept electronic service under California Rules of Court, rule 2.251. | Home -->)" -->
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?”