Lewis v. CPDA Trucking LLC, et al.

(Spring Street Courthouse: Dept. 25) September 8, 2026 DEPARTMENT 25 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS *** The Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is JUDGE JONATHAN H. EISENMAN *** Tentative Rulings are posted before the hearing.

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. The party submitting to the tentative must include to the e-mail any other party to the action.

Please note that if a party fails to appear at a law and motion hearing without having given notice under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1204, subd. (c), the court may take the matter off calendar, to be reset only upon motion, or may rule on the matter. If only one party has submitted, the Court may still hear the motion at the hearing or adopt the tentative ruling.

Please note, the above e-mail address is ONLY to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

All parties may appear remotely for law and motion hearings. A party may register to attend remotely by accessing the court's website at www.lacourt.ca.gov and by registering through LACourtConnect. This service is accessed via the "Online Services" tab at the top of the webpage, and by selecting "Remote Hearings" below the "Courtroom Services," then by selecting "Civil."

DATE: Tues., September 8, 2026 JUDGE /DEPT: Eisenman/25 CASE NAME: Lewis v. CPDA Trucking LLC, et al. COMPL. FILED: 09-23-24 CASE NUMBER: 24STLC06914 NOTICE: OK PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS MOVING PARTY: Defendants CPDA Trucking LLC and Jose Francisco Garcia RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Catherine Lewis MOTIONS TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED, COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.290; 2031.300; 2033.280) TENTATIVE RULING: The Court DENIES CPDA Trucking LLC and Jose Francisco Garcia's motions. CDPA is to give notice.

SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP Sec.Sec. 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP Sec.Sec. 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on August 25, 2026 [] Late [] None

REPLY: Filed on August 31, 2026 [] Late [] None

ANALYSIS: Catherine Lewis sued CPDA Trucking LLC and Jose Francisco Garcia for motor vehicle and negligence causes of action. CPDA and Garcia answered. Lewis then unsuccessfully moved to reclassify this case as an unlimited jurisdiction case. CPDA and Garcia then propounded discovery on Lewis, including form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission. Lewis failed to timely respond to the discovery requests, so CPDA and Garcia move to compel responses to the requests and to deem matters admitted.

The Court DENIES the motions. Code of Civil Procedure section 94 constrains discovery in limited jurisdiction actions to any combination of 35 interrogatories with no subparts, demands to produce documents, and requests for admission with no subparts. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 94, subd. (a).) CPDA and Garcia propounded a total of 56 discovery requests on Lewis: 25 form interrogatories, eight special interrogatories, five requests for production, and 18 requests for admission. Because the discovery propounded on Lewis exceeds the limits permitted in a limited civil case, the Court will not compel Lewis's responses.

The Court will not engage with the parties' arguments over any responses that have been subsequently served, verified or not, as it will not grant motions to compel discovery that were propounded in violation of the Code of Civil Procedure. CPDA and Garcia may withdraw their previous discovery requests and propound new ones on Lewis, provided they comply in all respects with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the California Rules of Court. CDPA is to give notice. | Home -->)" -->