Ambriz v. Landeros Furniture City, et al.

TENTATIVE RULING Wednesday September 09, 2026 Department 35– Michael A. Dauber Tentative Rulings for Department S37, if posted, are on court’s website (https://www.sbcourt.org/divisions/civil/civil-tentative-rulings) by 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing (in some cases, on a non-court day before the hearing). If no tentative ruling is posted by 3:00 p.m., please check again after 7:00 p.m.

Unless you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, you must appear for the hearing either in person, CourtCall (888-882-6878 or www.courtcall.com), or by ZOOM. Failure to appear is deemed a waiver of oral argument. If you wish to submit to the tentative, please call the Judicial Assistant at (909) 708-8707 in advance of the hearing. If all parties submit on a tentative ruling, the tentative ruling will become final. The tentative ruling may seek input on particular issues and direct appearance. If so directed, attendance at the hearing is mandatory. The party prevailing on a motion or other hearing shall serve written notice of the court’s ruling unless all parties waive notice of the ruling.

ATTENTION: Since January 9, 2023, the court no longer provides an official Court Reporter to transcribe proceedings. Parties who wish to have a transcript must retain their own private reporter and must submit a “Stipulation and Order to Use Certified Shorthand Reporter.” Please contact the Department if you need this form. Prior to the hearing, you can email the completed Stipulation to Department S37 at AGear@sbcourt.org. Parties who do not retain their own reporter have waived the right to one.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE RULING. ____________________________________________________________________________ CASE NUMBER: CIVSB252984 Ambriz v. Landeros Furniture City, et al.

Motion: To Compel Further Responses to From Interrogatories; Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Movant: Plaintiff Ambriz Respondent: Defendant Filemon Landeros, dba Landeros Furniture City ____________________ ________________________________________________________

Background

Plaintiff Abraham Ambriz alleges he was subjected to various Labor Code violations in

connection with his employment with Defendants Landeros Furniture City and Filemon Landeros.

Ambriz commenced suit over the violations against both Defendants in October 2025. Landeros

has answered indicating the business is his mere dba.

Ambriz propounded a set of requests for production of documents (RPD’s) and form

interrogatories, both general and employment interrogatories (FRog’s). Responses to the discovery

were apparently served on January 23, 2026. The responses largely refuted the existence of an

employment relationship and, as a result, no further information was provided. Unsatisfied,

Ambriz sent Landeros a meet and confer letter and Landeros responded. After no resolution was

reached, the pending motions to compel further responses were filed on March 25. The motions

involve RPD No.’s 1-3 and 5-57 in addition to FRog No.’s 4.1, 4.2, 12.1-12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1,

14.2, 15.1, 200.1-200.6, 201.1-201.6, 207.1, 207.2, 211.1, 211.2, 214.1, 214.2, 215.1, 215.2, and

216.1.

The motions are supported by a separate statement, declarations from attorney Junlin Lui,

the discovery and responses, the meet and confer correspondence, and an e-mail to the Court

reserving a hearing date. In a separate declaration, Liu indicates the deadline to file the motions

was March 11 and the motions were submitted for filing that date. The same day Liu obtained a

hearing date from the Court’s reservation desk, and he received a responsive e-mail indicating the

hearing would be June 8, 2026. However, Liu concedes he left the hearing date blank on the

moving papers because the Court’s system indicates it requires up to 72 hours to process a

reservation. Liu then indicates that the motions were rejected on March 25 because of the purported

lack of a hearing date. The documents were then resubmitted the same day for filing (March 25)

and bear a “filed” stamp of that date.

The motions are opposed by Landeros on the grounds that the discovery responses are

Code-compliant and the motions are untimely. The opposition is supported by declarations from

attorney Michael Weiss, the discovery responses, the meet and confer letters, a printout from the

Court’s website, and the register of action.

Analysis

Meet and Confer

Ambriz only sent Landeros one meet and confer letter. As of January 1, 2026, which was

before the motions were filed, meet and confer efforts for discovery motions must be conducted

either in person, by telephone, or by video conference. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, 2030.300,

2030.310.) This did not happen. The hearing is taken off calendar. [Local Rule 560(1)]. The

litigants are to meet and confer as required, file declarations supporting the meet and confer and if

necessary obtain another reservation date from the court.

///

///

____________________________________

Michael A. Dauber, Judge San Bernardino County Superior Court

7