Mendoza v. United Rentals, Inc.
Motion to Compel Further Answers at the Deposition of Defendant's Person Most Knowledgeable Nelson Antonio Blanco
Motion type
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Causes of action
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Attorneys
Ruling
Case No. 24PSCV02694 (Related to Case No. 25PSCV03525) ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PMK DEPOSITION Plaintiff Elmer Mendoza's Motion to Compel Further Answers at the Deposition of Defendant's Person Most Knowledgeable Nelson Antonio Blanco is GRANTED. Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant United Rentals and its Counsel of Record Michael S. Sutton are awarded in the reduced amount of $2,250.
Background
Case No. 24PSCV02694 Plaintiff Elmer Mendoza ("Mendoza") alleges that he sustained injuries and damages on September 30, 2023, when a scissor lift fell over as he was using it. On August 20, 2024, Mendoza filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against United Rentals (North America), Inc. (sued as United Rentals, Inc.) ("United Rentals") and Does 1-50 for: (1) Products Liability and (2) General Negligence. On July 10, 2025, Mendoza filed an "Amendment to Complaint," correcting "United Rentals, Inc." to "United Rentals (North America).
Inc." On September 5, 2025, United Rentals filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint, asserting causes of action against Evercharge, Inc., Evercharge Service, LLC ("Evercharge Service") and Does 1-50 for: (1) Equitable Indemnity, (2) Contribution and Apportionment, (3) Declaratory Relief, (4) Negligence, (5) Express Contractual Indemnity and (6) Breach of Contract. On May 26, 2026, the Court related Case Nos. 24PSCV02694 and 25PSCV03525 and designated Case No. 24PSCV02694 as the lead case. A Case Management Conference/Post-Mediation Status Conference and Order to Show Cause Re: Notice of Related Case are set for November 16, 2026.
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?”